Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Ramola U.S. D/o Shanmukha – Appellant
Versus
B.I. Hemanth Kumar S/o Indu Shekar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. temporary injunction granted to plaintiff (Para 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner filed for extension of injunction (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. interim order continues unless vacated (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. actions during non-extension not disobedience (Para 11) |
| 5. court allows continuance of interim order (Para 12) |
ORDER :
1. Heard learned senior counsel - Sri Sreevatsa on behalf of learned counsel - Sri Mahesh R.D. for petitioner.
2. The reliefs that were sought in the present petition are as under:
(i) Direct the Learned XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, to forthwith consider and dispose of I.A. No.6 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking continuation of the Interim Order dated 24.11.2023 in OS 7598/23 vide Annexure-A,, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
3. This Court does not find any need to issue notice to the respondents as the only relief that is sought in the present writ petition is to direct the trial Court to dispose of I.A. No.6 in a time bound manner.
4. Parties are referred to as per their ranki
Interim orders under the Code of Civil Procedure continue until revoked, emphasizing the necessity for timely extensions to maintain protective measures against potential harm.
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 failure to record reasons for granting an ex-parte injunction without notice constitutes a jurisdictional error and renders such orders unsustainable.
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 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 and provide reasoning for injunction applications based on urgency and merits before requiring notice to the other party, as mandated by procedural rules.
appellant has not filed any objection/application before the Trial Court under Rule 4 of Order 39 C.P.C. to vacate the ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a final order....
The trial court must provide reasoning when deciding applications for temporary injunctions and cannot merely issue notices without addressing the merits of the request.
Appellate court refrains from interfering in extended interim orders when IA under Article 226(3) is pending before Single Judge.
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
