A refusal of ex parte injunction is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r), precluding writ substitution.

The petitioner-plaintiff challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 6 December 2019, which declined to grant an ex parte ad-interim injunction on his application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and instead issued emergent notice to the respondents.

The suit, instituted in 2019, sought to restrain media respondents from publishing or broadcasting material alleged to be defamatory.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court had granted an interim injunction on 20 January 2020; the injunction application nevertheless remained pending before the Trial Court.

Whether the petitioner could challenge the Trial Court’s order refusing ex parte ad-interim relief through a writ petition when an appellate remedy was available under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

Whether the High Court’s continuing interim order stayed the suit proceedings or relieved the parties of the need to obtain a decision on the pending injunction application.

Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC provides a statutory appellate remedy in respect of orders under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not ordinarily a substitute for that remedy, particularly where the challenge concerns the correctness of an interlocutory injunction order and no exceptional circumstance warrants intervention.

An interim order preserving the subject matter of a dispute does not, by itself, stay further suit proceedings unless the order expressly so provides.

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Raju B.V. v. Gemini Shares and Stocks Private Limited, W.P. No. 13889 of 2022, disposed of on 22 January 2026, in support of the alternative-remedy objection.

The Trial Court had considered the material and declined ex parte relief after recording prima facie satisfaction; its order was therefore an order made in exercise of jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and was amenable to appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).

The petitioner’s complaint concerned the correctness of that interlocutory decision, and no exceptional basis for invoking writ or supervisory jurisdiction was shown.

Further, the High Court’s interim order did not suspend the suit or prevent the Trial Court from deciding the pending application.

The parties were expected to bring that order to the Trial Court’s attention and assist in securing a decision on the application.

The petitioner was granted liberty to seek an early hearing of the pending application, and the Trial Court was directed to consider it on its merits after hearing the parties, who were to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The interim order dated 20 January 2020 remained subject to its terms and was clarified not to stay the suit proceedings.