Can Ex-Parte Injunction Stand When Plaintiff Fails to Observe Order 39 Rule 3 CPC?

Injunctions are one of the most powerful remedies in civil law, allowing courts to restrain parties from certain actions to protect rights and preserve the subject matter of the dispute. However, granting an ex-parte injunction—that is, without hearing the other side—is an extraordinary measure.

Recognising its potential for misuse, the legislature introduced procedural safeguards under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). These safeguards ensure that while urgent relief can be granted without prior notice to the opposite party, the principles of natural justice are not sacrificed.

Legal Framework: Order 39 Rule 3 CPC

Order 39 CPC deals with temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders. Rule 3 specifically addresses the procedure before granting an injunction.

Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party:

The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party.
Proviso: Where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice, the Court shall:
Record reasons why delay would defeat the object of granting the injunction; and
Require the applicant—
a. To deliver/send to the opposite party immediately after the order:
– Copy of the injunction application;
– Copy of affidavit in support;
– Copy of the plaint;
– Copies of documents relied upon.
b. To file an affidavit on the same or next day confirming compliance.

This rule thus balances urgency with fairness, ensuring that the opposite party is promptly informed and can contest the injunction without unnecessary delay.

Purpose of the Rule

The rationale behind Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is rooted in natural justice—audi alteram partem (hear the other side). An ex-parte injunction curtails a party’s legal rights without hearing them, which can cause irreparable loss. Therefore:

• Primary Rule: Notice must be given before granting an injunction.
• Exception: No notice is needed if delay defeats the purpose of the injunction.
• Mandatory Conditions: Court must record reasons and plaintiff must promptly serve documents and file an affidavit.

The mandatory nature of these conditions has been emphasised in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, (1993) 3 SCC 161, and reaffirmed in the present 2025 ruling.

Factual Background of the Case

In Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd. (2025):

• The Trial Court granted an ex-parte injunction restraining defendants from transferring or altering the suit property.
• It appointed a Local Commissioner for inspection and directed compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.
• The Defendants challenged this before the Allahabad High Court under Article 227, alleging non-compliance with Rule 3 and absence of basic injunction criteria—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
• The High Court found procedural lapses and set aside the injunction.
• The Plaintiff approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, while disposing of the matter, laid down important principles:

1. Ordinary Rule—Notice Before Injunction

• Generally, injunctions should not be granted ex-parte.
• Notice ensures both sides are heard and prevents misuse.

2. Exception—Urgency Justifies No Notice

• Rule 3 permits no-notice injunctions if delay defeats the purpose.
• But such urgency must be justified by recorded reasons.

3. Mandatory Compliance by Plaintiff

• If the injunction is granted without notice, the plaintiff must:
• Immediately serve all relevant documents on the defendant; and
• File an affidavit confirming service on the same or next day.

4. Violation Leads to Automatic Consequence

• Non-compliance with these conditions empowers the court to vacate the ex-parte injunction without examining merits.
• The plaintiff loses the privilege of urgent relief because they denied the defendant the opportunity for an early hearing.

5. Reaffirmation of Shiv Kumar Chadha Principle

• Parliament intended strict compliance—failure makes the ex-parte injunction unsustainable.
• This is not a procedural formality but a substantive safeguard.

Key Highlights of the Decision

Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan stated

We are of the opinion that 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.

Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, (1993) 3 SCC 161

The Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha held:

• The proviso is not optional.
• If a statute prescribes a specific manner, it must be followed exactly.
• Recording reasons is essential—without it, the injunction process loses credibility.

The 2025 judgment applies the same reasoning to the service and affidavit obligations on the plaintiff.

Practical Effect of Non-Compliance

If a plaintiff obtains an ex-parte injunction but fails to meet Rule 3 CPC requirements:

1. The court may vacate the injunction forthwith, without hearing on merits.
2. The matter then proceeds to a bi-parte hearing on the injunction application.
3. The plaintiff may still seek injunction relief, but only after both parties are heard.
4. The delay and loss of interim protection may prejudice the plaintiff’s case.

Why Compliance is Critical

For the Plaintiff:

• Ensures the injunction survives until the next hearing.
• Demonstrates good faith to the court.
• Prevents allegations of suppression or procedural abuse.

For the Defendant:

• Provides immediate access to pleadings and evidence.
• Allows preparation of an effective defence.
• Minimises damage from unjust restraint.

Judicial Trend: Strict Enforcement

Indian courts have consistently enforced these conditions strictly:

Conclusion

The answer to the central question—Can an ex-parte injunction remain in force if Order 39 Rule 3 CPC conditions are not met by the plaintiff?—is a clear No.

The Supreme Court in Time City Infrastructure has reinforced that:

• The safeguards under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC are mandatory.
• Failure to comply empowers the court to vacate the ex-parte injunction without touching the merits.
• This ensures fairness, prevents abuse of urgent relief, and upholds the integrity of injunction proceedings.

Injunctions are equitable remedies, and equity demands both urgency and fairness. Plaintiffs seeking urgent relief must be vigilant in fulfilling their procedural obligations, for the law grants them the privilege of ex-parte protection only in exchange for strict compliance with Rule 3 CPC.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams