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.

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 Suit No. 2105 of 2024 (Santosh and another Vs. Chirag Aashiana) on 16.12.2024 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gautam Buddh Nagar for the relief of declaration that sale deed dated 09.05.2008 is not binding on the plaintiff- respondents. A further prayer for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute was made. The plaintiff-respondents also filed an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. claiming interim injunction. The trial court i.e. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gautam Buddh Nagar by order dated 16.12.2024 granted ex-parte injunction directing both the parties to maintain status quo till next date of listing. Hence the present writ petition.

5. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the proposition of law that petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against an ex-parte order of injunction and that he could have also filed an application under Rule 4 of Order XXXIX of C.P.C. for setting aside the order of ex-parte injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no appeal could be filed against an ex-parte order of injunction as under Rule 1(r) of Order XLIII, appeal is provided only against orders passed under Rule 1, 2, 2(A), 4 and 10 of Order XXXIX of C.P.C. No appeal can be filed against an order passed under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of C.P.C. It has also been contended by counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment of this Court in case of Gurmej Singh and others Vs. Ranjit Kaur and others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine All 1531, an appeal cannot be filed against an order of ex-parte injunction before the expiry of six months from the date of the passing of the order of the ex- parte injunction. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed in the case of Gurmej Singh (supra) has been followed by this Court in subsequent judgments i.e. India Glycols Limited Vs. Radico Khaitan Limited reported in 2021 SCC OnLine All 516 and in the case of Rinku Maheswari & 4 others Vs. Snehlata Maheshwari and 6 others in Matters Under Article 227 No. 5356 of 2021 decided on 21.10.2021. Learned counsel fo