The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.

ORDER :

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

"(i) Writ of certiorari or any order of like nature to set aside the order dated 30.10.2025 to an extent of not considering the application I.A.No.1/2025 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 in O.S.No.7569/2025 on the file of the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-36) for grant of ex-parte injunction vide Annexure-A.

(b) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and property reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of this case."

3. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents for the reason that the respondents have not been served the notice/summons and the petitioner is before this Court questioning the order of the trial Court having not passed any order on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the petitioner.

4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has filed a suit against the defendants who are the publishers of certain news items in the respective newspapers against the petitioner/plaintiff. Along with the plaint, he has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 seeking an ad-interim ex-parte mandatory injunction order directing the defendants, their men, servants, agents, administrators, assignees, etc., to delete, remove, block, de-index and de-refer the defamatory articles mentioned in the schedule against the plaintiff and such other reliefs. The schedule of the articles published in the respective publications by the respective newspapers is a part of the schedule. Instead of considering this application, the trial Court has merely issued notice to the defendants. Hence, aggrieved by the non-passing of an ad-interim ex parte order, the plaintiff is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made several allegations against the defendants for having wrongfully made these statements and this application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC requires to be considered as an urgent interim relief prior to issuance of notice to the defendants ad-interim ex parte by taking into consideration the proviso under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is the domain and jurisdiction of the trial Court to deal with this application and pass a reasoned order on the basis of the materials placed and the submissions so put forth, if any, by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishore Kumar Khaitan and Another V/s Praveen Kumar Singh reported in (2006) 3 SCC 312, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly culled out the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the question of maintainability is no longer res integra, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has already decided this matter time and again in several judgments. It would be relevant to extract paragraph No.13 of the said judgment:

"13. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be restrictive in the sense that it is to be invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction. But when a court asks itself a wrong question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding of fact, the said finding of fact cannot be said to be one rendered with jurisdiction and it will still be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The failure to render the necessary findings