Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Chirag Aashiana Pvt. Ltd.a-4 – Appellant
Versus
Santosh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"i. Direct the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar to decide the application 18Ga filed by the defendant/petitioner under order 39 Rule 4 of C.P.C. dated 07.04.2025 in Original Suit No.2105 of 2024 (Santosh Vs. Chirag Aashiana), expeditiously, within a time bound period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court preferably within a period of one month.
ii. Issue any other such order or directions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
iii. Set aside the ex-parte order dated 16.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar."
3. Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he confines his prayer to decide and consider the prayer No. 3 made in the writ petition. The prayer No. 3 in the writ petition is to set aside the ex-parte injunction order dated 16.12.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Buddh Nagar.
4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondents instituted Original
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.
Refusal to grant ex parte injunction is appealable; procedural adherence is vital for determining appealability under CPC.
Trial courts must evaluate all materials presented in applications for injunctions and provide clear reasoning for their decisions, especially when considering ad-interim orders.
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.
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
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....
Non-compliance with statutory requirements for an ex parte injunction renders the order invalid, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural mandates.
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.
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
