EX PARTE INJUNCTIONS AND THE RULE OF LAW: THE SUPREME COURT’S REAFFIRMATION OF PROCEDURAL SANCTITY

INTRODUCTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 21747 of 2025)( Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan)(Date of Judgement- 11.08.2025), addressed the procedural compliance necessary for granting an ex parte injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The decision reiterates the mandatory nature of safeguards built into the proviso to Rule 3, emphasising the court’s duty to record reasons and the Applicant’s obligation to fulfil statutory requirements before enjoying such interim relief.

 

BRIEF FACTS

The Petitioner, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd., had purchased certain land parcels and claimed to have been in uninterrupted possession since 2015 after paying the agreed consideration. Alleging interference with their possession, they filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barabanki, seeking injunctive relief and other declarations.

On 9 May 2025, the Trial Court granted an ex parte status quo order, restraining alienation or change in possession of the disputed property, and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the site. The Defendants challenged this Order before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court set aside the injunction, observing that the suit lacked a clear basis for ownership, did not seek specific performance despite the lapse of limitation, and failed to establish the three essential prerequisites for an injunction — prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The matter was directed to be transferred to another competent court for fresh consideration of the injunction application.

Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

 

ISSUES OF LAW

• Whether an ex parte injunction can be granted without strict compliance with the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
• Whether the Trial Court’s order satisfied the mandatory requirements of recording reasons and ensuring the applicant fulfilled statutory obligations.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court examined Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, which mandates that before granting an injunction, notice must be given to the opposite party except in cases where delay would defeat the very object of the injunction. In such exceptional circumstances, the court must record reasons for granting ex parte relief and ensure that the Applicant promptly delivers copies of relevant documents to the opposite party.

Relying on Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD (1993) 3 SCC 161, the Court stressed that compliance with the proviso is not optional. The requirement to record reasons is substantive, intended to protect the rights of the party restrained without a hearing. Any ex parte injunction granted without fulfilling these statutory safeguards risks being set aside.

The Court noted that if the Applicant fails to comply with the proviso, the ex parte order can be vacated without going into the merits, leaving the parties free to argue the matter afresh.

However, given that the Trial Court was scheduled to hear the injunction application the following day, the Supreme Court refrained from interfering with the High Court’s order. It directed that the application be decided purely on merits, uninfluenced by the High Court’s earlier observations.

 

CONCLUSION

This Judgment reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is the backbone of interim relief jurisprudence. The proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC is designed to strike a balance between urgency and fairness — protecting the Applicant’s interests while safeguarding the Respondent from being restrained without an opportunity to be heard. The courts must scrupulously record reasons for bypassing notice and ensure applicants fulfil their reciprocal obligations.

By allowing the Trial Court to proceed independently, the Supreme Court maintained procedural sanctity while avoiding unnecessary interference, underscoring that both statutory safeguards and judicial discretion must operate hand in hand.

 

SARTHAK KALRA

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Videos, titled “Religion and the Law in India |Constitutional Rights Explained |Advocate Sushila Ram Varma| &  “भारत में धर्म और कानून | आपके संवैधानिक अधिकार | एडवोकेट सुषीला राम वर्मा” can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOwNImOWIJs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOrpU1Jpyjk