Telangana High Court
Sri Bangla Shekar vs Sri. Balla Shankaraiah on 11 September, 2025
The Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara
Civil Revision Petition No.3195 of 2024
Order:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by
the order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Prl. Junior
Civil Judge-cum-IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-
Malkajgiri, Uppal at L.B.Nagar, in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in
O.S.No.462 of 2024.
2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the suit against
the petitioner/defendant No.10 herein and others for partition
and separate possession and declaration in respect of the
schedule plot bearing No.143 admeasuring 220 sq.yds., in
Sy.No.673/1, 673/2, 674, 675, 675/A, 675/AA, 679/1 and
679/2, situated at Satya Nagar Colony, Uppal Kalan Village and
Uppal Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. Along with the suit,
they have filed I.A.No.216 of 2024, wherein, ad-interim
injunction is granted in her favour restraining the petitioner
herein from alienating the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by
the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
3. Vide impugned order dated 25.06.2024 in I.A.No.216 of
2024 in O.S.No.462 of 2024, the learned Trial Court has passed
the following ad-interim injunction order:
".... Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioners/plaintiffs and perusing the material
papers, affidavit, documents filed in support thereof, the
Court doth order, granting ad-interim injunction in favour
of the petitioners/plaintiffs restraining the
respondent/defendant No.10 and their agents from
alienating the petition schedule property, till 24.07.2024."
4. The above order shows that the Trial Court failed to
discuss about prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss that the respondent herein would suffer in case
an ad-interim injunction is not granted by dispensing notice
under Order 39, Rule 3 of CPC. Whenever, an ad-interim
injunction is granted by dispensing with notice to the
respondents, since such a course of action involves passing of
adverse orders against a party who is not heard, the Court is
expected to record the reasons in writing for granting ad-
interim injunction for dispensing with notice.
5. The High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in case
between Latha Ilangovan v. Usha Rajaram and others1
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das2,
wherein the following principles governing the grant of ex-parte
injunction are laid:
"15....
36. As a principle, ex parte injunction could be
granted only under exceptional circumstances. The
factors which should weight with the court in the
grant of ex parte injunction are-
(a) whether irreparable or serious mischief will
ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would
involve greater injustice than the grant of it
would involve;
MANU/TN/5741/2019
MANU/SC/0553/1994
(c) the court will also consider the time at which the
plaintiff first had notice of the act complained
so that the making of improper order against a
party in his absence is prevented;
(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff had
acquiesced for sometime and in such
circumstances it will not grant ex parte
injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex
parte injunction to show utmost good faith in
making the application.
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be
for a limited period of time.
(g) General principles like prima facie case balance
of convenience and irreparable loss would also
be considered by the court.
6. On consideration of the above principles, the High Court
of Madras (Madurai Bench) in case of Latha Ilangovan
(supra) held that when a Trial Court proposes to grant interim
injunction without giving notice of application under Order 39,
Rule 3 of CPC to opposite party, then object of granting
injunction itself would be defeated by delay and it is mandatory
for Court to record reasons for granting ex parte interim order
even though granted for limited period. In the instant case, the
impugned order is devoid of reasoning and therefore, not
sustainable.
7. Additionally, the learned counsel for the respondents
challenged the maintainability of CRP under Article 227 of
Constitution of India against the impugned order when any
order passed granting ad-interim injunction has to be dealt in a
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Learned counsel for the revision
petitioner again relied upon judgment of High Court of Madras
(Madurai Bench) in case of Latha Ilangovan (supra), wherein,
it is held as follows:
"12. From the above decisions, it is clear that in the ordinary
circumstances, when there is an alternative remedy, the Court
should not interfere with the ex parte interim order passed
by the Court below. However, in exceptional cases, when
error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings
such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard
of the provisions of law, the High Court may step in to
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction."
8. Further, as per Order 43, Rule 1 of CPC, an appeal is
maintainable against an order passed under Order 39, Rule 1
and 2 of CPC but not an order passed under Order 39, Rule 3
of CPC i.e. granting of ad-interim injunction by dispensing with
notice to respondents. In the instant case, the order is passed by
dispensing with notice to the respondents under Order 39, Rule
3 of CPC and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is
maintainable.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated
25.06.2024 in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in O.S.No.462 of 2024 is not
tenable and is liable to be set aside.
10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Prl.
Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Medchal-Malkajgiri, Uppal at L.B.Nagar, in I.A.No.216 of 2024
in O.S.No.462 of 2024, is set aside. It is open to the Trial Court
to pass a reasoned order in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in O.S.No.462
of 2024 on merits, after hearing both the parties. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 11.09.2025
gvl
