An ad interim ex parte injunction must be justified with clear reasons and requires notice to be given to all parties involved; failure to do so renders the injunction invalid.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are defendants before the trial Court in O.S.No.959/2025, being aggrieved by an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the respondent- plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioners herein have filed two original suits in O.S.Nos.27/2023 and 28/2023 against the respondent and others in respect of the existing road. The relief sought in the said suits was for declaration with regard to the easementary rights for the alleged illegal modified plan which was modified in the year 2019, wherein an interim order was sought by the petitioners against the respondent and others, who tried to block the two existing roads which are schedule C and D properties in O.S.No.28/2023. In the said suit, the interim order was passed against one Chikkarevanna restraining him not to put up any construction on the existing road. However, the interim application I.A.No.3 for an order as against the respondent herein was dismissed.

3. Aggrieved by the said interim order, one of the parties namely, Chikkarevanna had filed two appeals in MA.Nos.4 and 5 of 2024 before the first Appellate Court. The said appeals came to be dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court. However, so far as the relief sought against the respondent herein in MA.No.11/2024, the same is still pending adjudication.

4. It is contended by Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri H.C.Nataraja for petitioners that despite all these facts, the respondent approached the trial Court by filing a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.959/2025 and obtained an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, thereby removed temporary shed and compound wall and by virtue of such an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction, the respondent started illegal construction to change the nature and started obstructing the easementary rights of the local residents, thereby the respondent was trying to block the existing road by putting up a permanent commercial complex on the existing road, which is used for more than 40 years.

4.1 It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that along with the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction, an application came to be filed for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC restraining the petitioners-defendants, its office bearers, agents, representatives, members or anyone claiming on its behalf from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever. Upon filing such an application, the trial Court, without hearing the petitioners-defendants, has passed an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction on 28.08.2025 without any proper reasoning, which is a cryptic and unreasoned order. Therefore, the order is bad in law and the same requires to be interfered by this Court.

4.2 It is also contended by learned Senior Counsel that the respondent-plaintiff along with other allottees have been making attempts to illegally put-up construction on the existing road, which is actually a site property. The respondent-plaintiff has also colluded with the BDA authorities and is making hectic efforts to usurp and occupy the pre-existing road, which is available only for the residents. Admittedly, the petitioners have approached the Civil Court seeking the relief of declaration and nullity of the modified plan which has been created in collusion with the BDA by the