Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Jayanthi D/o A.J. Jagadeeswarn – Appellant
Versus
K. Prasad S/o Late Ramanjeyalu – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court in Original Suit OS.No.7635/2025.
3. The present petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
a) To set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.7635/2025 by the Hon'ble XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on IA.No.1 vide Annexure - L.
b) Issue a writ in nature of direction or order to allow the IA No.1 in O.S.No.7635/2025 on the file of Hon'ble XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Court Bangalore vide Annexure - J.
c) To pass such other a writ or order this Hon'ble Court as deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the above case.
4. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, wherein the learned trial Judge has issued emergent notice on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC along with suit summons, hence for having not passed an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.
5. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents/defendants for the reason that the respond
The trial court must provide reasoning when deciding applications for temporary injunctions and cannot merely issue notices without addressing the merits of the request.
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.
Trial courts must evaluate all materials presented in applications for injunctions and provide clear reasoning for their decisions, especially when considering ad-interim orders.
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.
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.
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential hardship to obtain a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
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
