LexTIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOW versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 730 : 2025 INSC 966 Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. The State of U.P. & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21747 of 2025) 11 August 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The High Court set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) granting ex parte injunction as prayed for by the petitioner – herein in Civil Suit No.447/2025. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to Or.39, R.3 – Trial Court granted ex parte injunction in favour of petitioner- herein (original plaintiff) – Respondents herein (original defendants) invoked supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art.227 – The High Court held, inter-alia, that the trial Court has not considered the suit in its entirety and no reasoning as mandated in terms of proviso of Or.39 R.3 CPC has been recorded – Thus, the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) granting ex parte injunction was set aside – Correctness: Held: Ordinarily an order of injunction u/Or.39, CPC may not be granted ex parte – Rule 3 carves out an exception – 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 – This Court is of the opinion that if the court is satisfied of non-compliance 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 [2025] 8 S.C.R. 731 Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v. The State of U.P. & Ors. 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 – In the instant case, hearing to take place before the trial Court on 12.08.2025 – Trial Court is directed to hear both the parties in so far as the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of appropriate injunction is concerned and decide the injunction application on merits – No need to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. [Paras 5, 7, 8] Case Law Cited Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD [1993] 3 SCR 522 : (1993) 3 SCC 161 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. List of Keywords Ex parte injunction; Order 39 of CPC; Proviso to Order 39, R.3 of CPC; Obligation on court to record reasons; Obligation on applicant to comply with clauses (a) and (b) of Order 39, R.3; Vacation of the ex parte order of injunction. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21747 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in WC No. 6701 of 2025 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv., Shantanu Krishna, Anant Prakash, Ms. Suchita Joshi, Sai Shashank, Ms. Sagrika Arya. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Bench Lucknow) dated 24-7-2025 in Writ-C 732 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports No.6701/2025 by which the petition filed by the respondents – herein (original defendants) came to be allowed thereby set asiding the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) granting ex parte injunction as prayed for by the petitioner – herein in Civil Suit No.447/2025. The Trial Court passed the following order dated 9-5- 2025 while granting ex parte injunction in favour of the petitioner – herein (original plaintiff):- “Heard on the arguments of the Ld.Counsel for the plaintiff on the Application C-6 with affidavit C-7 of the plaintiff on ad interim Injunction. The plaintiff has filed the Extract of Khatoni of Year 1425- 1430 C-11/1 Ta 10 at serial no.C-10, Certified copy of Agreement to Sell Dated.21.03.2015 at serial no. C-12/1 T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.