Trial courts must evaluate and provide reasoning for injunction applications based on urgency and merits before requiring notice to the other party, as mandated by procedural rules.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Umesh.S, on behalf of learned counsel Sri.Shivakumar.V for the petitioner, and learned counsel Sri.Paramesh Aradhya for the respondent.

2. At the stage when the matter is being argued, learned counsel Sri.Paramesh Aradhya states that he wants to retire from the case for want of instructions from the respondent /defendant.

3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 on IA.No. 2 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC in OS No. 97/2025.

4. The parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial court as plaintiff and defendant.

5. Plaintiff is before this court. He has filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in IA. No.2 seeking an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession, lawful physical possession, enjoyment of the suit schedule property against the defendants, his henchmen, or agents till disposal of the suit.

6. On the said application, the learned trial judge has passed the following order on IA No.2 "As the plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction against defendant, hence it is just and necessary to hear the defendant before passing any ad interim orders on IA No. 2 hence issue emergent notice on IA No. 2 to defendant and issue suit summons to defendant."

7. It is against this order that the plaintiff is before this Court. It is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, perverse and arbitrary and the same is not the correct procedure to be followed, as the Court ought to have granted an ad-interim order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendant, which it has not done and has merely issued notice by stating that the defendant has to be heard, which is contrary to the proviso to Order No. XXXIX Rule 3.

8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff is the absolute owner and a bona fide purchaser, and he has continued in peaceful possession, actual and physical and enjoying the suit schedule property. He has purchased the suit schedule property from one Sri.Appannarao for a valuable sale consideration by a registered sale deed dated 05.08.2024. The registered sale deed has been ignored and not considered by the learned trial judge. The learned trial judge has also failed to take into consideration that the defendant is an utter stranger and a land grabber taking undue advantage of the situation. The defendant and his supporters have been making illegal interference with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also the contention that the defendant has illegally tried to trespass and interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of the suit schedule property high-handedly despite having the knowledge that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. All these aspects have been ignored, which are stated in the plaint and the application annexed to the application, and the trial Court instead of granting an ad interim ex parte order has merely issued notice which is not the correct procedure to be followed; therefore, he is before this Court seeking to set aside the order and consequently grant an interim order of temporary injunction.

9. It is further contended by learned coun