Supreme Court directs fresh hearing on ex parte injunction, reiterates mandatory compliance with Order 39 Rule 3

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard a Special Leave Petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order that set aside an ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by a trial court in a suit concerning disputed land and property development. The petition was filed by the original plaintiff who had obtained an ex parte injunction from the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barabanki in Civil Suit No. 447 of 2025; the High Court, in Writ-C No. 6701/2025, had set aside that order, made critical observations about the suit and directed administrative action. The Supreme Court heard the limited challenge to the High Court’s interference under Article 227 and considered the scope and mandatory nature of the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3, CPC.

The Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition and declined to interfere with the High Court’s order in the broader challenge, but directed the trial court to hear and decide the injunction application afresh on merits. The bench reiterated that “ordinarily an order of injunction may not be granted ex parte” and emphasised the mandatory statutory obligations when an injunction was granted without notice. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. … The party which invokes the jurisdiction of the court for grant of an order of restraint against a party, without affording an opportunity to him of being heard, must satisfy the court about the gravity of the situation and court has to consider briefly these factors in the ex parte order. … If it is held that the compliance with the proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the proviso ... shall be a futile exercise and that part of Rule 3 will be a surplusage for all practical purposes.” The bench further observed that if an applicant failed to comply with the proviso, the court which had granted the ex parte order could vacate it without expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving the parties to a bipartite hearing.

Background

The dispute arose from a sale transaction concerning several contiguous plots in Village Kurouli, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki. The petitioner (original plaintiff) produced a registered agreement to sell dated 21.03.2015, a sale deed dated 30.04.2025 and records asserting full payment and peaceful physical possession since 2015. The trial court on 9.5.2025 granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction under Order 39, directing status quo as to title and possession and appointing an Amin to inspect the property.

The original defendants invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and secured an order dated 24.7.2025 setting aside the trial court’s ex parte injunction. The High Court described the suit as “nothing but a legal jugglery,” observed that no suit for specific performance had been filed within time, found absence of a claim under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and recorded that the trial court had not applied the three traditional injunction tests or the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3. The High Court directed transfer of Suit No. 447 of 2025 to another competent court, ordered that the transferee decide the injunction application within 15 days and directed administrative follow-up regarding the trial court’s conduct.

On appeal by special leave, the Supreme Court analysed the scope of Order 39 Rule 3 and the proviso, relying on the Court’s prior jurisprudence (Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD) to hold that reasons for ex parte relief and compliance by the applicant with Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso were mandatory. Noting that the trial court was scheduled to hear the injunction application on 12.8.2025, the Supreme Court refrained from broader interference, directed the trial court to hear both parties and decide the injunction afresh “without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the High Court,” and disposed of the SLP. No determination was made on the merits of the suit or on any transfer direction beyond these procedural instructions. The Special Leave Petition stood disposed; pending applications were also disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21747 of 2025 Case Title: Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. The State of U.P. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Not mentioned in the order / counsel not stated in the judgment text provided.