Non-Compliance With Order 39 Rule 3 CPC Mandates Vacation Of Ex-Parte Injunction: Supreme Court

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, Lucknow v. State of U.P. & Others[1], delivered on August 11, 2025 discussed the requirement consequences of mandatory obligations concerning emerging from grant of ex-parte interim injunction came about under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. In a reference to Section 94 of the Code the Court held that ex-parte injunctions, if warranted by exceptional circumstances, are subject to rigid compliance with those statutory prerequisites.

Facts

The dispute arose out of a civil suit filed by Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited seeking injunction in relation to certain parcels of land situated in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh. The trial court, by its order dated 9 May 2025 in Civil Suit No. 447 of 2025, granted an ex-parte interim injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property and restraining alienation until the next hearing. The trial court also appointed a local commissioner and directed compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.

The defendants challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) under Article 227 of the Constitution. By order dated 24 July 2025, the High Court set aside the trial court’s injunction, holding that the order lacked recorded reasons and that the plaintiff had not complied with mandatory requirements under Order 39 Rule 3. The matter was further carried before the Supreme Court by way of special leave.

Issue

The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether an ex-parte injunction granted in violation of the mandatory conditions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC i.e, recording of reasons by the court and service of documents by the applicant was permissible. The next question was the effect of non-compliance and whether the High Court was justified in quashing the order of injunction which had been granted by a subordinate court.

Arguments

On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the trial court had applied its discretion to preserve the subject property from alienation and to maintain status quo in the interest of justice. It was submitted that ex-parte injunctions are granted to prevent irreversible harm before the opposite party has the opportunity to appear, and that any lapses in procedure could be cured in subsequent hearings. The petitioner emphasised that its possession and investments in the suit property justified urgent protection, and therefore the High Court should not have interfered.

The respondents contended that the injunction was granted in a mechanical manner without satisfying the established tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. It was pointed out that the trial court had not recorded reasons as mandated under the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3. Moreover, the plaintiff had not complied with the requirement to serve copies of the plaint, application, affidavit, and supporting documents upon the defendants immediately after the order was passed.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside the ex-parte injunction and clarified the law on ex-parte interim relief under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The Court emphasised that ordinarily, an injunction should not be granted without notice to the opposite party. Rule 3 creates a narrow exception where delay would defeat the very purpose of granting injunction. This privilege is accompanied by two obligations: first, the court must record reasons in writing explaining why ex-parte relief is necessary; and second, the applicant must immediately serve on the opposite party copies of the application, supporting affidavit, plaint, and relied-upon documents, and must file an affidavit confirming such service.

The Court held that if there is non-compliance with these requirements, the ex-parte injunction must be vacated without entering into the merits of the dispute. The applicant, having failed in its duty, cannot be allowed to continue enjoying the benefit of ex-parte relief. The Court clarified that such vacation does not determine the merits of the injunction application, which must then be considered afresh after hearing both parties.

In the present case, since the trial court had not recorded reasons and the plaintiff had failed to comply with service requirements, the injunction order could not be sustained. However, as the matter was scheduled for hearing on 12 August 2025 before the trial court, the Supreme Court declined to interfere further and directed the trial court to hear both parties and decide the injunction application on merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations of the High Court.

Analysis

The division bench’s judgment confirms the rarity of ex-parte injunctions. The general rule is that courts must not even consider issuing certain forms of equitable relief which might restrain the exercise of legal rights until after both parties are actually heard. An ex-parte relief can be granted without notice to the accused and such a narrow window exists because if in some case notice is issued then the object of injunction will be defeated, for instance alienation or destruction of property being imminent. This is equated to the Court trying to balance urgency with fairness by insisting on a strict compliance of Order 39 Rule 3.

The obligation on courts to record reasons is significant. It prevents mechanical or arbitrary grant of ex-parte injunctions and provides transparency for appellate or supervisory review.  Equally important is the obligation on the plaintiff to serve documents. Ex-parte injunctions tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff at the initial stage. To mitigate prejudice, the law requires that the defendant be supplied with all material immediately so that they can seek modification or vacation of the order at the earliest opportunity.

The decision further underlines that High Courts in the writ jurisdiction of Article 227 act as supervisory courts to correct errors committed by subordinate judiciary in passing of orders from trial courts. It supports the decision of High Courts to intervene where ex-parte injunctions have been passed without compliance and are being used as a tool by one party against another. On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s directions that the trial court will decide it afresh on merits ensures no substantive claims stand to be prejudiced and resolves the dispute through a fair hearing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, Lucknow v. State of U.P. & Others affirms that compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is mandatory. Ex-parte injunctions are an exception to the general rule of notice, and their grant is conditional upon the court recording reasons and the plaintiff ensuring prompt service of documents. Failure to adhere to these conditions requires automatic vacation of the injunction, leaving the matter to be decided on merits after hearing both sides.

[1] SLP (Civil) No. 21747 OF 2025.