Case Note & Summary
The appellant in MFA 3477/2026, Sri Suresh Babu J N, and the appellants in MFA 3478/2026, Smt. B Rajeshwari and others, filed miscellaneous first appeals under Section 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), challenging an order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the XXX Additional City Civil Judge, CCH-31, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 2944/2026. The impugned order merely issued notice on IA No. 2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, without granting any ex parte ad interim injunction. The appellants contended that the trial court ought to have granted an ex parte injunction in their favor. The High Court, presided over by Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, heard the appeals along with connected matters. The court noted that the order appealed against was only a notice-issuing order and not a decision granting or refusing injunction. Under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, only orders under Order 39 Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4, or 10 are appealable. An order merely issuing notice does not fall within these categories. However, the court proceeded to examine the merits of the case. The court observed that the trial court had not recorded any satisfaction of exceptional circumstances as required under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC before granting any ex parte injunction. Since no injunction was actually granted, the appeals were essentially premature. The court dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, but clarified that the trial court should consider the injunction application on its merits after hearing all parties. The judgment was delivered on 30 June 2026.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex Parte Injunction - Order 39 Rule 3 CPC - Requirement of Recording Reasons - The trial court issued notice on the application for temporary injunction but did not grant any ex parte injunction; however, the court's order was challenged as being without jurisdiction. Held that the order merely issuing notice is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, but the appeals were considered on merits. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Appealability - Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - An order merely issuing notice on an injunction application is not a 'decision' under Order 39 Rule 1 or 2 and is not appealable. However, the court proceeded to examine the merits. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an ex parte ad interim injunction without recording satisfaction of exceptional circumstances as required under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, holding that an order merely issuing notice on an injunction application is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. The court clarified that the trial court shall consider the injunction application on its merits after hearing all parties.
Law Points
- Ex parte injunction
- Order 39 Rule 3 CPC
- Notice before injunction
- Exceptional circumstances
- Recording of reasons
