Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishwanath S/o Basappa Baati, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, challenging an order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi in O.S. No. 106/2022. The impugned order allowed I.A. No. 02 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), granting an ex parte temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff (respondent No. 6) without issuing notice to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, which requires the court to record reasons for dispensing with notice before granting an ex parte injunction. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka and other revenue authorities, were represented by the High Court Government Pleader and counsel for respondent No. 6. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that it did not contain any reasons for the court's opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, as required under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The court held that the trial court had acted in a mechanical manner and that the order was unsustainable in law. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration of I.A. No. 02 after hearing both parties. The court directed the trial court to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex Parte Injunction - Order 39 Rule 3 CPC - Mandatory Compliance - The trial court granted an ex parte temporary injunction without recording reasons for dispensing with notice to the opposite party - Held that Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates that no injunction shall be granted without notice to the opposite party unless the court records reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay - The impugned order was set aside for non-compliance with this mandatory requirement (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an ex parte temporary injunction without recording reasons for dispensing with notice as required under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Basavana Bagewadi in O.S. No. 106/2022 on I.A. No. 02 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration of I.A. No. 02 after hearing both parties. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Law Points
- Ex parte injunction
- Order 39 Rule 3 CPC
- mandatory compliance
- recording of reasons
- notice before injunction
- civil procedure
