Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri N. A. Haris, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the VIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on IA No.1 in OS No.2790/2012. The trial court had declined to grant an ex parte ad interim order of injunction and instead ordered emergent notice returnable on 24.05.2012. The petitioner had filed the original suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondents (a newspaper and its reporter, editor, and publisher) from making any defamatory statements and allegations about him. The petitioner argued that the trial court ought to have granted an ex parte injunction as the matter was urgent and the defamatory publications were continuing. The respondents had entered appearance and filed objections to the IA. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction is an exception and not the rule. The trial court had exercised its discretion by issuing emergent notice instead of granting an ex parte injunction, and such discretion, unless shown to be perverse or arbitrary, should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The court found no perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. The court also noted that the trial court had not finally decided the application and that the petitioner could pursue the matter before the trial court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex parte Ad Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rule 3 CPC - Discretion of Trial Court - The trial court declined to grant ex parte ad interim injunction and ordered emergent notice returnable after a month. The High Court held that grant of ex parte injunction is an exception and not the rule, and the trial court's discretion, unless perverse or arbitrary, should not be interfered with. The court found no perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order. (Paras 1-5) B) Defamation - Injunction against Publication - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from publishing defamatory statements. The High Court noted that the trial court had not finally decided the application and had only issued notice. The High Court declined to interfere, observing that the balance of convenience did not warrant an ex parte injunction. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to grant an ex parte ad interim order of injunction and instead issuing emergent notice in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing defamatory statements.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order of the trial court is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Ex parte ad interim injunction is an exception
- not the rule
- Courts should not grant ex parte injunction without recording reasons
- Discretion of trial court in refusing ex parte injunction is not to be interfered with unless perverse or arbitrary
- Principles of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC
- Balance of convenience
- Prima facie case
- Irreparable injury.
