Absence of immediate threat to possession precludes grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 3.

The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction, asserting they were declared bhoomiswami in 1993-94.

During the pendency of the suit and an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, the petitioners filed a separate application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC.

They alleged that 20-25 individuals attempted to forcibly dispossess them, although they admitted to still being in physical possession.

The Trial Court rejected the application for an ex-parte injunction on May 25, 2026.

The petitioners challenged this rejection via a supervisory petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error or illegality in refusing to grant an ex-parte interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC

2. Whether the petitioners demonstrated sufficient urgency or "extreme danger" to their possession to warrant bypassing the requirement of notice to the opposing party

The court primarily applied Order 39 Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which govern the granting of temporary injunctions and the requirement of prior notice to the defendant unless delay would defeat the object of the injunction.

Section 151 of the CPC regarding the inherent powers of the court to meet the ends of justice.

Scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which limits interference to cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error.

The High Court observed that while the petitioners claimed an imminent threat of dispossession supported by photographs, they remained in actual possession of the property.

The Court reasoned that Order 39 Rule 3 requires a showing that the delay caused by giving notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction; however, the petitioners failed to provide material evidence—beyond mere photographs—to prove "extreme danger" or urgency.

The Court noted that the petitioners had already approached the police without success and had an application under Rules 1 and 2 still pending.

Consequently, the Court found that the Trial Court’s decision to deny the ex-parte relief was in consonance with legal principles and did not warrant exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.

The High Court maintained that the finding of the lower court was legally sound given the lack of evidence for extreme urgency and the petition was dismissed as being bereft of merits.