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.

JUDGMENT :

T. Vinod Kumar, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dt.23.01.2025 in I.A. No.73 of 2025 in O.S. No.18 of 2025 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. The Appellants herein are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the underlying Interlocutory Application and defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit filed by respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff for perpetual injunction.

3. In the aforesaid suit, the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the underlying Interlocutory Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’) to grant ad-interim injunction order restraining the Appellant herein and all persons claiming through or under them from illegally interfering with the "Petition Schedule Property", in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the main suit.

4. The trial Court, considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff and upon perusal of the material papers, affidavit, petition documents filed in support thereof, passed an order ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of petitioner, restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff over the schedule property till 13.02.2025 vide order dt.23.01.2025. The trial Court further extended the interim order till 07.04.2025 vide order dt. 13.02.2025.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the Appellants/respondent Nos.2 and 3 had filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

6. Appellants/respondent Nos.2 and 3 contend that respondent No.1/plaintiff is not in physical possession of the petition schedule property, while the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in physical possession of the petition schedule property with security staff and CCTV coverage and covered by a compound wall.

7. Appellants/respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein further contend that the impugned order under appeal is unsustainable in law, since the trial Court had failed to record reasons for dispensing with issuance of notice and for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction, till 13.02.2025 to the respondents/defendants as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC.

8. By contending as above, the Appellants/respondent Nos.2 and 3 have sought for dismissal of the underlying Interlocutory Application.

9. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the Appellants that the trial Court without issuing notice to the Appellants herein and in violation of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC, without recording reasons for dispensing with issuance of notice to the Appellants herein, has granted the ad interim ex parte injunction order dt. 23.01.2025.

10. It is also further contended that respondent No.1/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and the trial Court has erred in not recording any findings about the requirement of prima face case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury for grant of injunction ex-parte in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

11. By contending as above, appellants sought for setting aside the order of the trial Court in granting the ad interim ex parte injunction order dt. 23.01.2025.

12. Per contra, on behalf of respondent No.1 it is contended that the responde