The High Court · 2025

Petition :ncle rr Section 15 j cpc praying that in the crrcurrstitnces stated in the affidavit fil:d rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with he firing of the certified copy of the ex-parte ad rnlerim injunction order dated 1t3 01 2O2S passed in I.A.No.73 of 2025 in O.S.No.18 of 2025, on the file of the Vl AdJ tjc;tal District and Sessions Judge _ cum _ Farnil,,/ Court, Ranga Reddy District at K r<atpa y. counself ortheAppeilar,.,*.FJ.r*.prro.f oRAMANA,s[;t.coUNSEL Xrrilff Counsel for the Res pondents:_SRl VIVEK REDDY, SR.COUNSET_ REP. ROHIT POGULA The Court madr the following: ORDER a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR ANI) THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CI!1L MISCEI, LANEOUS APPEAL No.79 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (per Hotr'ble Sri Justicc T. Vinod Kuntar) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against tire ordsi dt.23.01.2025 in I.A. No.73 of 2025 in O.S. No. lg of 2025 on the file of VI Additional Distr.ict and Sessions Judge_cum_Fanrily Court, Ranga Rcddy District at Kukarpally.

2. The Appellants herein are respondent Nos.2 ancl 3 in the underlying Interlocutory Application and defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit filed by respondent No.l herein as plaintiff for perpetLral rn;unction.

3. In thc aforesaid suit, the respondent No.l/plaintiff has fited the underlying Interlocurory Application under Order XXXIX Rule I and,2 r/w Section 151 Code of Civil procedure (for short 'C,P.C.') to grant ad-interirn injunction order restraining the Appellant herein and all persons claiming through or unCer them - from illegally interfering with the ',petition Schedule property,,, in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the main suit. 2 '.1

4. Thr tri,rl Court, considering the submissions -trede by the leamed (lor.ursel appearing for respondent No.1/plain.ifl.and upon perusal cf thr: material papers, affidavit, petition docrrrne rts filed in support thereof, passed an order ex parte ad_inlerim injrrqlglisn in favour o'' petitioner, restraining the respondent fronr interfering with the cor session and enjoyment of the petitioner/p lalntiff over the sched,rle property tilt 13.02.2025 vide order dt.23.01.2025. The trial Court f.uther extended the interim order till 07.04...:.025 vide order dr. 13.1 t .2025

5. Aggrrev:J by the aforesaid order of the trial Crur1, the Appellantsiresrondent Nos.2 and 3 had filed the pr:st.nt Civil Miscellane ou:; Appeal.

6. Appellarrt;/respondent Nos.2 and 3 contend thar res pondent No.l/plaintifT ir not in physical possession of the petitron l,cherlule property, rvh;1,: the appellants/defendant Nos.2 and 3 are in physical possession of the petition schedule propefty u,,i.h ,;ecurity staff and CO'['r/ coverage and covered by a compound wt.Jl. 7 . Appellrn( s,'respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein furlher co ntr,nd that the impugne d ,r der under appeal is unsustainable in .la,uv, si rce the 3 tlial Court had failed to recorcl reasons for dispensing with issuance of notice and for grant of oc parte ad_interirn injunction, till 13.02.2025 to the respondents/defendants as Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CpC. contemplated under 8 By contending as above, the Appellants/respondent Nos.2 and 3 have sought for disrnissal 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 rccording 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.l/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.l/plaintiff. 4 .l \l \ I 1. By < or.tr:nding as above, appellants sought for :ret ing aside the order o1 the trial Court in granting the ad inter n cx parte injunctior orcer dt. 23.01.2025

12. Per,)otit"a, on behalf of respondent No.l it is cortended that the respondent has the ownership and possession over th,: petition schedule DroFefty and the notice to be sent under orler XXXX Rule 3 CI'C u,as sent and served upon the appellants arrd inspite of the same :he rrppellants choose not to enter appearanc() t elore the Court bek'tv'

13. The Jtesg'61dsn1 No.1 fi.rrther contends that the tr.ill (lourt has rightly all,rwr:,1 the interlocutory application and granterl a I interim ex parte ir junr:tion in favour of respondent/plaintiif, a:; pr,mafacie case existr; irL their favour, the presence of adequate r:asrons, and the threat of dispossession; and that the Court below rt:[yrng upon the certifi<'d ,::opy of sale deed, Pahanies and Revcnue lrroceedings which shory the title and possession of the Respondenr/plaintiff has categorica ly noted that a primafacie case is made oul in lavour of Responder t/pl;rintiff, 5

14. The Respondent No.l further contends that the though on behalf of Appellants it was clairned of R espondents having not pleaded any tlreat of dispossessioa, the pleadings of the rcspondent herein in the underiying I.A exhaustivery estabrish that there is an imminent threat of dispossession inasmuch as the appellants herein on 05.01.2025 h.ied to trespass into the petition schedule propelty, placing a board with the rcspondent No.l/defendant No.i,s narne ancl tried to grab it. Subsequently on 08.01.2025, respondents/defendanis came with another board stating that the petition schedule property belongs to respondent No.2/defendant No.2. Thus, on behalf of Respondent it is contended that the court below by considering all the above aspects had rightly granted injurrction. 15 Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, leamed Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Rehan Ahmed, Ieamed Counsel for Appellants and Sri Vivek Reddy learned Senior Counsel appe for Sri Rohit pogula, leamed Counsel for the Respondents perused the record. 6 \1 \

16. In orrler to appreciate the respective submission it ,s r ecessary to refer to Or,ler XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC which expressl y s lates that "The Cou,"l;hall in all cases except where it appears tl ut object of granting i,titt,t:tion would be defeated by delay, before Ttnting an injunction. direct notice of application for the satne to be given to opposite {,arir... provided that where it is proposed to grdnt any injunction witltout giving notice of the application to f 'te opposite party, the Courl shall record reasons for its opinion tlui tm object of granting iniunction would be defeated by delay."

17. The iiu;,1s119 Court in Shiv Kumar Chadlra M'unicipal Corporatittn orf Delhil held that: "32. I'c,ter to gront injunction is an extroordindr!- lo tet vstei iJ'the court to be exercised taking into considcratior lhe.ftrct., tlnd circumstonces of o particttlor case. 'l'he cotrrtt have to tv more coutious u'hen the saitl pouter i,;^ bc ing ercru ise:l r)ithout notice or hearing the party who is ro ltt alfec'cd bv the order so passed. That is why Rule -: of (h.Cet 39 o.'tl,e Code requires that in all cases lhe court thtll, be,lbr t gitrnt of on injunction, direct notice of the applicattor, exce t where il a )e lrs lo hc ,qi.,t,n to lhe opposite-por tl!J_!'LL er o.[ qrantiny in-iunctiort itself woul(l be dtl(atta bt t1tlq.. lj., rhc-Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) .tct. , c'.6. .. '1us3 1:scc I r, t 7 u proviso has becn added to lhe saitl rule saying that ,,.tvhere it is proposed to branl an injunctio vithout giying notice of the application to the opposite-porty, lJte court shall record r its apinion thal the object of g anting the the reasons o iniunction woukl be defeated by dalay f

34. The imoerative nalure of the proviso has to be d in the context o Rulc 3 of Order 39 o{ the Code Before the proviso aforesaid vas introduced, Rule 3 said "the court shall irr all coses, excepl vhere it appears thal fhe object of grunting the i,ljunction v,ould be ctefeatcd by the delay, before gronting an injuitction, direct noticc of the application for tlte same to be giten to lhe opposite-pdrty',. The proviso was introduced to provide a condiliort, vhere court proposes lo grant on injunction without giving notice pf the application to the oppositc-party, being of the opinion that the object of granting i|unction itself shall be defeated by delay The condition so introduced is that the court "shdll record the r,eosons whv on ex DArte order of iniutlction wos bein possed in Ihe facts and circu mstances of a oarticular case In this backsroun r recordins the reasons for prant of ex porle iniuhclion. canno t be held to be a mere 'formalitv This requirement ts consistent tyith the DrtnctDle, lhdl o Darty to a suit, who is beins restroined fronl exerc$tng a rl ht wltich such parv claims to exercise either urlder a stolute or under the common lav, must be informed whv instedd of followinp the reauirem ent of Rule 3, the procedure prescribed under the proviso has been follow ed. The Darfv which invokc the urisdiction of the coufi for RrqnI of qn order of restraint o'Painsl d partv,'fi)ilhout the reluirement NI to him o bein hear. must soli 8 \ l \ thL tr.'u rt about the sravity of the situotion and cour,t ltas lo c_o.,1su,lgr brieflv these facl.ors in the ex parle.order. 14 t, ure qu tt, ('n.\cious of the fact that there ore other stdtute; yh, cJt Jolu,t1 similor provisions requiring the court ot. the ,tu,hol i,), concerned to record reasons befort, exen.i.sitg po'ter tcsted in them. In respecl of some oJ such provi.tirnr il iru: lx et held that they are required to be complied t ith l ut ttot,-contpliance therewith will not vitiale tht) ordtt. ;o ars.al. BLtt same cannot be said in resDect of the prL,v,so to P Ru, e -j of Order 39 The Porliament has pre:-cribztl n Tttnlict'lt procedure for passing of an order o./ injtuit.ti,tn *illout nolice to lhe olher side, under exce,Dt;on.rl cir( u i \, onces. Such ex parte orders have -far-reat hing clJer.l q!.-!4t- t condition has been imrtosed that court rnusl rL t:o, d If ir is held thu' /1rc such order !:94 r!14.i_ be ore con'plt,t,rce \t,ith the proviso oforesaid is optional .rn/ ntt obl,gorc"v then the introduction of the proviso b) fl e ['qrliatnnt shall be a futile exercise and lhot part oJ R, e J yill be t surplus age for all pructical purpose.s Prot i; o ,o 81t1, 3 ot (Lgler 39 o.[]Ae Code, altrocts the principle, ll,or rf q.\Jllute rcqlires s thinp to be done in a pqrticulor mdt'ne. iJ snout:!' be done in that manner or nol oll. This pnntip,e was ap,ot'oted and accepted in well-known cases oJ Ta.,,,l,tr ,. Tay or ',875 I ch D 426) and Nozir Ahmetl v. Empero,,. -1[,? 193i I'(' 253(2). This Court has also etpressetl the :umz t'rcr it "espect of procedural requirement of the Bon,bav Tcntrncy und Agriculhral Londs Acl in the casa .f Ramchtirdra Keshav Adke v. Govitld Joti Chavare(t9-5 (l) sca _ij 7. " 9

18. This court in sri K. sathya Reddy v sml D. usha Rani (rendered by his Lordship Hon,ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, as His Lordship then was) had relied upon shiv Kumar Chadha (supra) and held that before granting an order of injunction without notice to other side, it must record the reasons for doing so and notice should be dispensed only when the object ofgranting injunction itselfwould be clefeated by delay. 19. In view of the afbresaid settled position of law, whengver a Court considers that it is necessary in the facts and cir.cumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other side, it must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration rvhile passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex parteorder is not passed.

20. The Court below has passed a detailed order stating that the petitioner/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in her favour through hei averments supported by the documents filed including the copy of sale deed, pahanies and revenue proceedings. The Court below observed that there is a threat of dispossession, the 10 \ \ verypurpos)oifilingthesuitwillbedefeatedifnoticei.;ordered. Hence issua rct: rf prior notice is dispensed with' 2 I . It is e',id,: rt that the trial Court while issuing tltt er-parte injunction, 1is::nsing with issuance of notice of injlrncti'rn had comprehensivell recorded reasons of it being satisfieo har if the ex-parte in- un,:.ion is not granted, object of granting inj'rnction would be d:feated by delay. Thus, the impugned order pa;sed by the Trial (lcrur. granting an exparte ad-interim inju:rt'tir n ra'ith recordecl rcrtsons is in compliance with the mandatory pr<'r'i ;ions of Order XXXIX IttLle 3 of CPC.

22. Iufttrer, it is also to be noted that the appellant lreroin had filed the pr,:sert appeal against the order of the trial CctLrt 1lanling ex parte ac intt:rim injunction. However, if one takes rLot'l of the provisions r I rlrrder XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, it can be seen th rt Court has discr:etion to pass order of injunction under OrCc:r XXXIX Rules I ancl .l CPC withotrt issuing notice to opposile ptrrly if it appears to he (lourt that the object of grar.rting injunction v'olr1d be defeated br Celay. On passing of such an order, withrlul issuing noticc to tlre ,.4rposite party, the pcrson obtaining stlch iLn ?x parte 11 order is required to comply with the conditions prescribed under Rule 3 of CPC by serving notice to the opposite party imrnediately. Upon service ofnotice, the opposite party is required to take steps for vacating the said order by filing its counter to the iirterlocutory application. Upon such filing of the counter, the Court is r.equircd to dispose of the same within 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted and if the Court fails to do so, it should record reasons for such inabilitv.

23. It is only when the opposite party on receiving thc notice filing counter to the interlocutory application and the said application not being disposed of within 30 days will get a right to file an appeal against the said order in terms of Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule lG) CpC. Thus, the Code itself provides for an altemate remedy against ex parte ad interim injunction order granted.

24. The Apex Court in .,4. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappanz dealing with ex-parte ad-interim injunction had held as under: ' lzoooy z scc oes 12 l 17 From a reading of the said judgment, it appe(lrs tt (ur ni,d 'l'ot it is only an extraordinary circumslanct' 'tru'er ''t'h;tlt l'te aggrieved person can prefer an appeal agttin\l lrt ,:td iti,.t inl injunction order. But, as o matter oJ'cours?. ihe ag,irn'v:d person cannot approach the oppellctt': or ,"etisit.r al Court during the pendency of the applica,it'n :br ,qnt t L r vacation oJ temporary injunction. It was ct ct,sc 'rhe re cn application lo vacate an dd interim injuncl,'o t ta"- -,akd t'nl 4s the said application to vocate the same, wtt.t t ot tliscot'-,1 of ttithin the stipulated time under the provi.;ittns of Or fur :9. P,ule 3A C.P.C., the parties therein approachLd the ,4p.tliue Courl dnd, in thql contefl, the Supreme Cou,'f I as ltell rl,at an appeal is maintainable. But, hov't'r.',tr, it in4tlie,l..v catuioned that in the normal course, the ag.qiatzcl paiv c.tnnot approach the appellate or revisional l)o;rt ,lu'.in5: he pendency of the application for grant or tctt otitn o./'(m,t )rory injunction. It is only when there is on in(cli)tt on the p art of the Courts in following the mandate provi iio,ts, tlrcn t,nl_v the aggrieved porty can approach the App"-lltle t::o,u't. .18. ,Slo t is clear that though an appeol is maintainable, s'u:h an tt1.'S,eul should be fled only in an extrao."uincD' (iruntstdnce under vhich the party is able to erplatn as to sr,hl l:e prefers an appeal in the High Court instead of chcost't'- to file a petition to yacale the ad interint injt,n)li(tn Ey,'n tn cuse of appeal agoinst an ad interim injunctto,r, lka opl)ellthe Court will not be bound to apply its mind to .,ll l\e ay'l()ritlons, tyhich the Original Court is bound to cor sic'er ttn 'he c tsc shown by the party affected by ad interim c,r,ler i t \ 13

24. The immediate remedy that is available to the opposite party itl cdse of issuing temporary injunctiolt without issuirtg hotice, is under the provisions of Ortlcr 39, Rute 4 C.p.C u'hich enables lhe Original C'ourl lo yory or sel aside or discharge the ex pat.te order. In the light of thc above provisions and also tlie legal propositioils, no appeal lies, as a matter of course, against an ex porte order, except in cxlraordinary circunstdnces or lhe rarcst of the rarc cases where the order is peryerse or bias or suffers fronr lack of jurisdiction, bul it is nol the case of the petitioner. .

25. The above ratio laid down by thc Supreme Couft has been applied by the erstwhile High Courr of Andhra pradesh while considering Civil Miscellaneors Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against an order of ex parte ad interim injunction in the case of Innovative Phaarma Surgicals v. pigeon Medical Devices (D Ld.

26. h the facts of the present case as.noted above, the Court below having granted ex parte ad-interim injunction initially on

23.01.2025 recording reasons for granting such an order the appellant herein ought to have taken steps for getting the aforesaid order vacated by filing its counter. It is not shown to this Court that the appellant herein having filed his counter before the trial r (2004) SCC Onliae AP 369 14 1 Court and thi:: trial Court not disposing of the application ,vithin 30 days for him t: approach this Court by the present appcal For the said reaso i th s Court is of the view that the present ('MA has to fail.

27. In tht: rr:,sult, the CMA is devoid of merit and is; ,rctordingly dismissed. llowevcr, it is made clear that this C,oirrt has not expressed ur'', cpinion on the merits of the matter. No c,tst ;. As r sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending i' any'shall stand closcd. l.lo order as to costs /ffRUE COPY// SD,'. N. SRIHARI EPU Y REGISTRAR I SESTION OFFICER i 1 To, n"no, Fledc v District at Kukatpally t. The Vl I'dditional District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Fan ily Court' 2. ffiJbt',;Nrii n"nun Ant"d , Ahvo6ate (oPUC) 5 il; 6c io ii-nor-,it Posula, Advocate (OPUC) 4- Two CD 'loI i,>s Ks/gh t. i.<. 1) \. i\ .) .': . j--. ( t'i lu\l M '' -..a- HIGH COIJR']T DATED:2f;|0412025 JUDGMENIT GMA.No.79 af 2025 Dismissinr; the C.M.A Without costs. rM .,7 ", tt (-. i :l ,l _:) ./:, t,