Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J.
Tulsiram S/o Shri Roda Ram Jat – Appellant
Versus
Nawab Ali S/o Marhoom Mushtak Ahmed – Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1093 of 2024
Decided on : 15-04-2024
INJUNCTION - CIVIL PROCEDURE - Order XXXIX Rule 3, CPC - The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, which requires notice to the opposite party before granting an injunction, except in cases where delay would defeat the purpose of the injunction. The court found that the lower court failed to record reasons for bypassing this requirement, leading to the quashing of the injunction order. The decision reinforced the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in granting ex parte injunctions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against an ad interim injunction order granted by the Additional District Judge in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, which restrained the defendants from interfering with mining operations. The appellant contended that the injunction was granted without proper notice and without recording necessary reasons as mandated by the CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court did not comply with the procedural requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3, CPC, which necessitates notice to the opposite party and the recording of reasons for granting an ex parte injunction. The absence of these elements rendered the injunction order invalid.
Issues: Whether the lower court's order granting an ex parte injunction without notice to the opposite party and without recording reasons was valid under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3, CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3, CPC, are mandatory and that any deviation from these requirements must be justified with recorded reasons. The court emphasized that the failure to comply with these procedural safeguards undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the lower court was directed to hear and decide the application for injunction within 30 days.
JUDGMENT :
MADAN GOPAL VYAS, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur (‘the learned Court below’) in Civil Misc. Case No. 20/2024, whereby an ad interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff-respondent has been passed by the learned Court in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order impugned as passed by the learned Court below is totally in contravention to the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (herein after referred to as 'the Rule') and hence deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that it is the mandate of law that before granting an injunction, the notice of the application is to be given to the opposite party in all cases and it is only where it appears to the Court that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, the Court shall proceed on to grant an injunction without notice to the opposite party. The proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3, CPC specifically lays down that while doing so, the Court shall record the reasons for the same. Learned counsel submitted that no reason whatsoever has been recorded by the learned Court in the present matter before proceeding on to grant the injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Further, even the compliance of other requirements as provided under Order XXXIX Rule 3, CPC has also not been made and therefore also, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Court was under an obligation to dispose of the temporary injunction application finally within 30 days from the date on which the ex-parte injunction was granted, but the same having not been done, the defendants-appellants have preferred the present appeal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the recent judgment passed by a Coordiante Bench of this Court in the matter of M/s. Jakhar Godara Marbel Mines Vs. M/s. Jakhar Godara Marbel Mines & Ors.; S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.485/2023, decided on 18.04.2023.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
4. A bare perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the suit in question was filed on 12.03.2024 and on the same date, it was registered and the learned Court, while issuing notice to the defendants, proceeded on to grant an ex parte ad-interim relief in favour of the plaintiff. Vide ad-interim order, the defendants were restrained from creating hurdles in excavating the mine in question.
5. Further, a bare perusal of the order impugned also makes it clear that it is bereft of any reason/opinion of the Court below as to why the object of granting the injunction would be defeated if the ad-interim order would not be passed without notice to the opposite party. Further a perusal of the order makes it clear that the next date fixed in the matter was 13.03.2024 and then, on 24.04.2024 i.e. after more than a period of 30 days whereas the law provides for application itself to be disposed of finally within a period of 30 days from the date on which the ex parte injunction is granted.
6. Order XXXIX Rule 3, CPC reads as under :
Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant—
(a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the ord
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 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.
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
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 an ex parte injunction without notice, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure, ensuring fairness in judicial proceedings.
Refusal to grant ex parte injunction is appealable; procedural adherence is vital for determining appealability under 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
