Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O.39 Rr.1 & 2 — Temporary injunction — Duty of trial court — Requirement of reasoned order
When applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC are heard, trial court is duty-bound either to grant or refuse ad-interim injunction by passing a reasoned order — Mere issuance of emergent notice without recording reasons after hearing parties is impermissible — Such non-speaking order is unsustainable.
[Paras 5–6]
Civil Procedure — Ad-interim ex parte injunction — Judicial discretion — Parameters
Grant or refusal of ad-interim ex parte injunction is a matter of judicial discretion — Discretion must be exercised on settled principles and supported by reasons — Trial court cannot indefinitely defer decision on interim applications on the ground of notice alone.
[Paras 6–7]
Defamation suits — Interim relief — Media publications — Procedural discipline
In suits seeking restraint against alleged defamatory publications through media, applications for interim injunction require prompt and reasoned adjudication — Failure to consider urgency pleaded and failure to record reasons defeats purpose of Order XXXIX CPC.
[Paras 4–6]
Supervisory jurisdiction — Art. 227, Constitution of India — Interference with interlocutory orders
High Court justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction where trial court fails to discharge statutory duty to decide interim applications in accordance with law — Remand warranted where discretion is not exercised at all.
[Paras 6–8]
Order XXXIX CPC — Requirement of recording reasons — Precedents
While dealing with applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, trial court must adhere to principles laid down in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd. v. State of U.P., and coordinate Bench decisions — Reasoned consideration mandatory.
[Paras 7–8]
ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS
1. Nature of Proceedings
The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by plaintiffs in a civil suit seeking supervisory intervention against the trial court’s failure to pass orders on applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a defamation suit concerning alleged defamatory statements and media publications.
[Paras 1–4]
2. Reliefs in the Suit and Interim Applications
The plaintiffs sought:
declaration that defendants’ acts were defamatory,
compensatory damages,
permanent and mandatory injunctions restraining further defamatory publications.
Along with the plaint, two applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC were filed seeking urgent ad-interim restraint against further publications in print, electronic and social media.
[Paras 3–4]
3. Grievance Against Trial Court
Despite hearing arguments on 30-10-2025, the trial court neither granted nor refused ad-interim injunction and merely issued emergent notice, adjourned the matter repeatedly, and recorded no reasons for declining immediate relief.
[Paras 5–6]
4. Legal Duty of Trial Court
The High Court reiterated that once applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC are heard, the trial court is obligated to:
consider urgency,
apply settled principles governing interim injunctions, and
pass a reasoned order either granting or refusing ad-interim relief.
Failure to do so amounts to non-exercise of jurisdiction.
[Para 6]
5. Reliance on Binding Precedents
The Court relied on authoritative precedents including:
Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd. v. State of U.P.,
Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajul Devi, and
earlier Karnataka High Court guidelines,
to reiterate that interim orders must be reasoned and prompt.
[Para 7]
6. Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction
Since the trial court failed to exercise discretion altogether, the High Court held that interference under Article 227 was warranted and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
[Paras 6–8]
7. Directions Issued
The High Court:
allowed the writ petition,
remitted the matter to the trial court,
directed expeditious hearing of interim applications,
mandated passing of a reasoned order in accordance with settled law.
[Para 8]
8. Ratio Decidendi
Failure of a trial court to pass a reasoned order on applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, after hearing parties, constitutes non-exercise of jurisdiction warranting supervisory correction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
[Paras 6–8]
No comments:
Post a Comment