SUPREME COURT: EX-PARTE INJUNCTION TO BE SET ASIDE IF PLAINTIFF DOESN’T MEET ORDER 39 RULE 3 CPC REQUIREMENTS:

The Supreme Court has held that an ex parte interim injunction granted under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) can be vacated if the mandatory requirements of recording reasons for granting such relief and ensuring service of documents to the opposite party are not fulfilled. The ruling came from a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, which dismissed an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to set aside a trial court’s order granting ex parte relief.

The case arose when the appellant, having secured an ex parte interim injunction from the trial court, contested the High Court’s reversal of that order. The High Court found that the trial court had not recorded reasons for granting the injunction and that the plaintiff had failed to serve the relevant documents to the defendant as required under the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC.

This proviso imposes an obligation on a plaintiff who has obtained an ex parte injunction to deliver to the defendant copies of key documents namely, the application for injunction, the affidavit supporting the application, the plaint, and any documents relied upon by the applicant—when the order is granted without prior notice to the defendant.

The Supreme Court explained that the scheme of Order 39 CPC makes it clear that ordinarily, injunction orders should not be granted ex parte. As a general rule, the opposite party must be issued notice and heard before such an order is passed. Rule 3, however, provides an exception where the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay. In such cases, the Court may grant an injunction without notice, but this is subject to two mandatory safeguards: the court must record its reasons for doing so, and the applicant must comply with the service requirements under clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Rule 3.

The bench underscored that the privilege of obtaining an injunction without notice comes with corresponding duties. If these obligations are not fulfilled, the injunction cannot be sustained. Affirming the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court stated that when a court finds non-compliance with these provisions, it is entitled to vacate the ex parte order without going into the merits of the case. The court noted that such an order would leave it open to the parties to have a full hearing on the injunction application in the ordinary bipartite manner.

The judges emphasised that an applicant who fails to comply with Rule 3 deprives the opponent of an opportunity for an early or urgent hearing on merits. In such a situation, the court that granted the ex parte order, having trusted the applicant to meet the proviso’s requirements, would be justified in withdrawing that indulgence and vacating the injunction.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the bench dismissed it, reiterating that compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is not optional but a mandatory condition for the continuance of an ex parte interim injunction.