Back
JASPREET SINGH
Upendra Nath Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Additional District And Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No. 1,Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J. - Heard Shri. Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Lalit Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for private respondent no.3.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Lucknow, whereby it dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the grant of ex parte interim injunction order dated 06.09.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.1732 of 2022.
3. The controversy before this Court is limited to an extent inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioner that the private respondent no.3 had instituted the suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Malihabad, Lucknow bearing Regular Suit No.1732 of 2022. Along with the plaint in suit, the private respondent no.3/plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. duly supported by an affidavit.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.09.2022 the trial court while admitting the suit had also heard ex parte on the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and the trial court passed an ex parte interim
Non-compliance with statutory requirements for an ex parte injunction renders the order invalid, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural mandates.
The court emphasized that an ex-parte temporary injunction must comply with Order 39 Rule 3 of CPC, requiring the court to assign reasons for its decision, failing which the order is liable to be set....
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.
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.
“3A Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which....
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
An appeal against an ex-parte injunction is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r), affirming that the right to appeal is a statutory right.
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.
Temporary injunction – When ex-parte temporary injunction is granted, defendant has right to file application under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC and seek for vacating the same.
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
