Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
K Channarayappa, S/o.Krishnappa – Appellant
Versus
Doddabasavaraju Late.K.Vasudevappa – Respondent
ORDER :
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1268/2025 wherein he has sought for relief of declaration and other consequential reliefs.
3. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC which is IA.No.1. It is also seen that the trial Court has not mentioned the application nor the provisions of law while passing the impugned order dated 06.11.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that the impugned order is illegal, perverse and arbitrary; such an order could not have been passed by the learned trial Judge. He further contends that when he has pleaded for an urgent order of ad-interim temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants, the trial Court ought to have considered the same and passed the order, whereas the trial Court has refrained from even mentioning the provisions of law and also not made any observations with regard to the reasons for not granting the ad-interim order and has passed an order mechanically, which is not sustainable in law.
5. This Court does not find need or necessity
The trial Court must provide reasoned orders when dealing with applications for temporary injunctions, particularly in urgent cases, and should not simply issue mechanical orders without assessment.
Trial courts must evaluate all materials presented in applications for injunctions and provide clear reasoning for their decisions, especially when considering ad-interim orders.
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.
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
The trial court must provide reasoning when deciding applications for temporary injunctions and cannot merely issue notices without addressing the merits of the request.
The failure to record reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction without notice constitutes a jurisdictional error and renders such orders unsustainable.
The court established that compliance with procedural requirements for granting ex parte injunctions is not optional but mandatory, and failure to adhere to these requirements invalidates the injunct....
The duty of fair disclosure and the exceptional nature of without notice applications, emphasizing the importance of time-limited injunctions and the reserved liberty for the Defendants to apply for ....
Injunctions without notice require rigorous justification and must adhere to procedural safeguards, emphasizing the necessity of recording reasons for ex parte orders to uphold fair judicial process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
