Advocates Appeared:
C.S. Saran and B.D. Gupta - The Standing Counsel

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. An order refusing to issue an ad interim injunction under Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code is generally not appealable. This is because such an order is considered a preliminary or intermediate decision, not a final disposal of the application for temporary injunction (!) (!) .

2. When the court refuses to grant an ex parte injunction but issues notice to the opposite party, it is not passing a final order on the application for injunction, and consequently, no appeal lies from such an order (!) (!) .

3. If the court grants an ex parte injunction, then an appeal is permissible because the application under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 is deemed disposed of, and the order is considered a final one on that application (!) (!) .

4. The refusal to grant an ex parte injunction, especially when the procedure under Rule 3 has not been followed or when the court has not applied its mind to whether the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, is not appealable and can be questioned in revision only if there has been a material irregularity or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction (!) (!) .

5. The exercise of inherent jurisdiction to grant temporary injunctions is within the discretion of the trial court. If the court refuses to exercise this jurisdiction properly, the decision cannot be challenged by appeal, but may be subject to revision if there is a material irregularity or illegality (!) (!) .

6. An order that is not passed under the specific provisions allowing appeals (Rules 1, 2, 4, or 10 of Order 39) cannot be appealed. Orders merely issuing notice or refusing ex parte injunction without final disposal are generally not appealable (!) (!) .

7. The discretion to grant or refuse an injunction must be exercised judiciously, considering whether there is a real risk of irreparable injury, and whether the object of the injunction would be defeated by delay. Orders made without proper application of this principle may be subject to revision (!) (!) .

8. When an application for injunction is not bona fide or is made with mala fide intentions, the court's refusal to grant such an injunction is justified and not subject to appeal or revision (!) .

9. The procedural requirements, such as issuing notice before granting a temporary injunction, are mandatory. Failure to follow these procedures can render the order non-appealable and may be questioned in revision if there has been a jurisdictional irregularity (!) (!) .

10. In cases where the court fails to consider whether the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, or acts without applying its mind to this essential aspect, the order may be subject to revision due to jurisdictional irregularity (!) .

11. The court has the authority to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to grant temporary relief in the interests of justice, especially when statutory procedures are not followed or when the circumstances warrant urgent intervention (!) .

12. A party seeking an injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case and show that there is a likelihood of irreparable or irremediable injury if the injunction is not granted. Orders should not be made solely on conjecture or without proper consideration of the facts (!) (!) .

13. When an appeal is dismissed as incompetent because the order was not passed under the appropriate rules, the matter can be reconsidered in revision if there are grounds of jurisdictional irregularity or miscarriage of justice (!) (!) .

14. The court’s decision to grant or refuse an injunction should be based on a careful evaluation of the facts, legal principles, and procedural requirements, with proper application of judicial discretion (!) (!) .

15. Overall, the legal framework emphasizes that only final orders on the application for temporary injunction are appealable, and orders that are interlocutory or procedural in nature are generally not subject to appeal but may be challenged in revision if irregularities are present (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.