Disposed

Mahendra Kumar Singhi v. Mr. M Raja

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2025WP/35850/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff challenged the trial court's order refusing ad interim ex parte temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction against harassment by the defendant. The High Court held the trial court was duty-bound to pass a reasoned order following Proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, quashed the unsustainable order, and directed disposal of I.A.No.1 in a time-bound manner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order held unsustainable; trial court directed to pass reasoned orders on I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC within a time-bound manner; liberty to petitioner

Mahendra Kumar Singhi Vs Mr. M Raja — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49311 WP No. 35850 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 35850 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGHI S/O. PRITHIVIRAJ SINGHI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2/1A 1^ST FLOOR, NANJAPPA ROAD SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI GAURAV RAJ GROVER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHREERAM NAYAK and SRI SATISH RAI, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. M. RAJA S/O. MR. MATHAPPAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.45 DHANAM ILLAM PRAKASH NAGAR MAIN DENKANIKOTTA ROAD HOSUR TOWN KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT - 635 109.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.11.2025 AT ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY XV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.7979/2025, WHEREBY THE TRIAL COURT HAS REFUSED TO GRANT AD-INTERIM TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ON I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 CPC AND ETC.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:49311 WP No. 35850 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff and

¶23

learned counsel for respondent-defendant.

¶24

The petitioner is the plaintiff, who has instituted a suit in O.S.No.7979/2025 against the respondentdefendant before the trial Court seeking following reliefs:

¶25

"a. Granting a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, assigns, or any persons acting on his behalf or under his authority, from threatening, intimidating, harassing, or interfering with Plaintiff and his family in any manner whatsoever;

¶26

b. Grant a Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from entering the Plaintiff’s residence or approaching the Plaintiff’s family members for collection of alleged rent or any other dues;

¶27

c. Pass any other Decree/s or order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the Case in the interest of Justice and equity.”

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49311 WP No. 35850 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and Section 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, wherein he sought for an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction directing the defendant, his men, agents, servants, representatives and or anyone claiming under him from threatening, intimidating, harassing, or interfering with the plaintiff and his family in any manner whatsoever and entering the plaintiff’s residence or approaching the plaintiff’s family members for collection of alleged rent or any other dues. The affidavit was also annexed to the said application.

¶31

The trial Court, after hearing the petitionerplaintiff on the application for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction filed under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, passed an order by issuance of emergent notice on I.A.No.1 along with suit summons to the defendant returnable by

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:49311 WP No. 35850 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

16.12.2025. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner-plaintiff is

¶36

before this Court.

¶37

This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent, as the same is not yet served before the trial Court on the suit proceedings or on the application.

¶38

Learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff contends that the trial Court, without expressing any reasons or providing any finding, has merely ordered for issuance of notice under the premise that without hearing the defendant, no order could be passed on the application. Hence, he seeks to allow his petition.

¶39

When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in the suit proceedings, it is the duty and obligation of the trial Court to pass suitable orders on the said application by following Proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC, wherein the plaintiff is seeking relief of an

¶40

ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction before

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49311 WP No. 35850 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

issuance of notice to the defendant as the delay in issuance of notice would cause irreparable hardship and injury to the plaintiff.

¶44

In those circumstances, it is provided in the provision that under extraordinary exceptional circumstances, if the trial Court being satisfied to grant such a relief prior to issuance of notice to the defendant/s,

¶45

it is not necessary in all cases that the trial Court would have to issue emergent notice or hear the defendant/s before passing an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. There are two stages arising out of the provision under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, i.e., to issue notice and thereafter, hear and pass orders when there is no urgency made out or the delay would not cause

¶46

any harm to the plaintiff/s. However, on the contrary, when the delay in issuance of notice infringes the personal liberty, right or damage to the property or creates threat to the person or property of the plaintiff/s, the trial Court

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:49311 WP No. 35850 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

is obligated and duty bound to pass a reasoned order to

¶51

protect the plaintiff and preserve his property.

¶52

It is relevant to note that while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the trial Court would have to consider the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha

¶53

v/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161, Time City infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow V/s State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v/s Smt.Rajul Devi reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 .

¶54

However, the fact is that in the present case on hand, the trial Court has not bothered to pass a reasoned order either to grant or reject an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:49311 WP No. 35850 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER

¶59

i) This writ petition is disposed of;

¶60

ii) A direction issued to the trial Court to dispose of the application in I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and Section 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 in O.S.No.7979/2025 in a time-bound manner.

¶61

iii) The petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to advance the matter and seek relief from the trial Court;

¶62

iv) The trial Court shall pass suitable reasoned orders on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 by following due process of law and adhering to the provisions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, Proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC, the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the judgment of this Court, strictly;

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:49311 WP No. 35850 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the

¶67

matter;

¶68

Ordered accordingly.

¶69