An order granting an ex parte interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r), rendering a Civil Revision Petition against such an order not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies are available.

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

Counsel for petitioners : Mr.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D. Jagadeshwar Rao.

Counsel for respondents : Mr. V. Murali Manohar.

GIST:

HEAD NOTE:

Cases referred

1) MANU/SC/0581/2000

2) Civil Revision Petition No.1197 of 2023, dated 15.09.2023

3) 1990 (2) APLJ (HC) 129

4) MANU/TL/0531/2023

5) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1674

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 19.07.2025 in I.A.No.888 of 2025 in O.S.No.326 of 2025 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the “impugned order”).

2. Heard Mr.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D. Jagadeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Mr. V. Murali Manohar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court had in the course of hearing the above I.A. (which was filed by the respondents herein under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908) dispensed with service of notice upon the petitioners herein before an interim injunction was granted.

4. Though various grounds have been raised while assailing the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that he is as of now questioning the impugned order to be bad in law on the ground that the same is lacking necessary ingredients required before dispensing with issuance of notice as is required under Order 39 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. He further submitted that unless the ingredients that are envisaged in Order 39 Rule 3 are met, the concerned Trial Court could not have dispensed with service of notice on the petitioners in the course of granting an ex parte interim injunction; and therefore, contended that the impugned order is per se illegal and bad in law.

5. According to the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, the impugned order also is bad for the reason that even while dispensing with service of notice upon the petitioners before granting an order of interim injunction, the Trial Court had also not recorded the reasons so far as granting of an ex parte interim order without service of notice on the opposite party, and for this reason also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the petitioners have been proceeded ex parte in a mechanical manner without effecting service of notice on the petitioners, and subsequently the petitioners on coming to know about the proceedings have moved a petition for vacating of the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and the Trial Court had taken into consideration all the factual matrix of the case while granting interim injunction. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, if at all the petitioners were aggrieved of the order they ought to have approached the Trial Court by moving an appropriate application seeking vacation of the ex parte interim order. The Trial Court then would have proceeded and decided the same on its own merits in accordance with law, or at least the trial itself could have been concluded without prolonging