Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs State of U.P. 2025 INSC 966 - Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC - Ex Parte Injunction Order - Non Compliance Of Proviso
What is the effect of an applicant's non-compliance with the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC?
Sign in to read our notes on this judgment. Register @ citecase.in to subscribe !
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 3 - Ordinarily an order of injunction may not be granted ex parte. The opposite party must be issued a notice and heard before an injunction may be granted. Rule 3 carves out an exception in favour of granting an injunction without notice to the opposite party where it appears that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay. Conferment of this privilege on the party seeking an injunction is accompanied by an obligation cast on the court to record reasons for its opinion and an obligation cast on the applicant to comply with the requirements of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso. Both the provisions are mandatory. The applicant gets an injunction without notice but subject to the condition of complying with Clauses (a) and (b) above said- if the court is satisfied of noncompliance by the applicant with the provisions contained in the proviso then on being so satisfied the court which was persuaded to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction confiding in the applicant that having been shown indulgence by the court he would comply with the requirements of the proviso, it would simply vacate the ex parte order of injunction without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case leaving it open to the parties to have a hearing on the grant or otherwise on the order of injunction but bipartite only. The applicant would be told that by his conduct he has deprived the opponent of an opportunity of having an early or urgent hearing on merits and, therefore, the ex parte order of injunction cannot be allowed to operate any more. (Para 5-7)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 966
Coram (Judges)
- Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Judgment Date
- Date of Judgment: 11 August 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, reported in 1993 SCC (3) 161
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
