Gujarat High Court
Narendrasinh Pruthvisinh Jadeja vs Dipan Sanjiv Shah on 25 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/188/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 188 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 188 of 2025
==========================================================
NARENDRASINH PRUTHVISINH JADEJA
Versus
DIPAN SANJIV SHAH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
SUREN B PATEL(8420) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
VAIBHAV V GOSWAMY(9019) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TATTVAM K PATEL(5455) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. BHAVNA D ACHARYA(6406) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 25/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhaval C. Dave with
learned Advocate Mr. Suren B. Patel for the appellant, learned
Advocate Mr. Tattvam K. Patel for respondent No. 1 and
learned Advocate Ms. Bhavna D. Acharya for respondent Nos.
2 and 3.
2. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Patel appearing for
respondent No. 1 submits affidavit-in-reply. Such reply is taken
on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/188/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
3. After arguing for some time, there is a consensus ad idem
between the learned Advocates having so agreed and under the
instructions of their respective clients, they jointly request this
Court to quash the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Trial Court on 05.05.2025 in the matter.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Patel appearing for respondent No. 1,
under the instructions of his client, further makes the statement
that he would not like to invite any reasons from this Court so
far as quashing of the impugned order. Nonetheless, learned
Advocate Mr. Patel requests this Court that respondent No. 1
happens to be the plaintiff and as such, till date, the appellant
herein has not filed reply, it may not happen that the injunction
application so pending before the Trial Court concerned may
not be decided.
4.1. So, learned Advocate Mr. Patel requests this Court to pass an
appropriate order to the Trial Court, thereby, his injunction
application filed by the plaintiff may be decided at the earliest.
5. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties,
having perused the sequence of events made before passing of
the impugned order and so also the impugned order, the
request made by learned Advocates appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/188/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
respective parties has been accepted. Thus, the impugned order
dated 05.05.2025 passed by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura below Exhibit 5 in
Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 2025 is hereby quashed and set
aside. At the same time, the consent of learned Advocate Mr.
Patel is required to be taken note of by this Court.
6. It is open for respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff to request
the Trial Court to hear and decide his injunction application
filed below Exhibit 5 in the suit at the earliest. As and when
such request will be made by the plaintiff before the Trial
Court, such request may be accepted by the Trial Court,
thereby, after hearing all parties concerned, the Trial Court
shall decide the injunction application on merits without being
influenced by any of the observations so far made by this Court
in this order and/or made by the Trial Court in its impugned
order dated 05.05.2025.
7. Before parting, it would be gainsaid that every Civil Court,
when passed any ex parte ad-interim injunction, is required to
take note of the provision of law, especially Order 39, Rule 3A
of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as
"CPC").
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/188/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
8. Further, recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Time
City Infrastructure And Housing Limited Lucknow V/S State Of
U. P. & Ors Reported in 2025 INSC 966 , deciding such an issue
regarding granting of ex parte ad-interim injunction, observed
thus:
"[5] Looking to the scheme of Order 39, CPC it
is clear that 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.
[6] We may refer to several observations made
by this Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, 1993
3 SCC 161. Although the observations have been
made primarily on the obligation of the Court
to record the reasons, yet in our opinion they
equally apply to the obligation cast on the
applicant by the proviso. The provisions are
mandatory. This Court observed thus:-
"The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of
Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Before the proviso aforesaid was
introduced, Rule 3 said "the court shall in all cases, except where it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/188/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by
the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application
for the same to be given to the opposite party". The proviso was
introduced to provide a condition, where court proposes to grant an
injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party
being of the opinion that the subject of granting injunction itself shall be
defeated by delay. The condition so intro- duced is that the court "shall
record the reasons" why an ex parte order of injunction was being
passed in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In this
background, the requirement for recording the reasons for grant of ex
parte injunction cannot be held to be a mere formality. This
requirement is consistent with the principle, that a party to a suit, who
is being restrained from exercising a right which such party claims to
exercise either under a statute or under the common law, must be
informed why instead of following the requirement of Rule 3 the
procedure prescribed under the proviso has been followed. The party
which invokes the jurisdiction of the court for grant of an order of
restraint against a party, without affording an opportunity to him of
being heard, must satisfy the court about the gravity of the situation
and court has to consider briefly these factors in the ex parte order.
We are quite conscious of the fact that there are other statutes which
contain similar provisions requiring the court or the authorities
concerned to record reasons before exercising power vested in them.
In respect of some of such non-compliance therewith will not vitiate the
order so passed. But same cannot be said in respect of the proviso to
Rule 3 of Order 39. The Parliament has prescribed a particular
procedure for passing of an order of injunction without notice to the
other side under exceptional circumstances. Such ex parte orders
have far-reaching effect, as such a condition has been imposed that
court must record reasons before passing such order. If it is held that
the compliance with the proviso aforesaid is optional and not
obligatory, then the proviso by the Parliament shall be a futile exercise
and that part of Rule 3 will be a surplusage for all practical purposes.
Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, attracts the principle that if
a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it should be
done in that manner or not all."
(emphasis supplied)
[7] We are of the opinion that if the court is
satisfied of noncompliance by the applicant
with the provisions contained in the proviso
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/188/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
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."
(emphasis supplied)
9. As this Court is not requested to assign any reasons in the
matter, it restrains itself and make further comments on the
order impugned in the appeal, but at the same time cautioning
the Trial Court that whenever it passes any judicial order,
record of the case as well as previous proceedings be verified
and it is required to pass a judicial order in a judicial manner,
that too in accordance with law as per the provisions of law i.e.
CPC.
10. It is made clear that this Court has neither gone into nor
examined the merits of the matter, as not requested by learned
Advocates for the respective parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/188/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
11. With the aforesaid observations and discussion and as such
reasons are not invited by the respective parties, the present
appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to
costs. Civil Application disposed of accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Diksha/NRP
