Ex parte defamation injunction against news platform set aside for lack of reasons; Karnataka High Court holds appeal maintainable

Cashfree Payments India Private Limited filed a suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunctions against Arti Singh and Head and Tale Media Pvt. Ltd., alleging publication of a defamatory article concerning the plaintiff and its business on the defendants’ media platform and social-media handles.

Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking immediate removal of the article from the specified URL and associated social-media platforms.

Without issuing prior notice, the trial court granted an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction, observing generally that notice would cause delay and defeat the purpose of the suit.

The defendants, a journalist and a media company, challenged that order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, contending that the order was unreasoned, failed to comply with the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, and did not address the requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

1. Whether an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC while the injunction application remains pending before the trial court?

2. Whether the trial court’s order granting the ex parte injunction was illegal, arbitrary, perverse, or otherwise unsustainable for failure to record adequate reasons and apply the principles governing temporary injunctions?

3. Whether the High Court should decide the injunction application on merits or remit it to the trial court for fresh consideration after hearing both parties?

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which empower courts to grant temporary injunctions where the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and the circumstances justify protection against threatened injury; Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, whose proviso requires the court to record reasons whenever an injunction is granted without prior notice and to require immediate service of the application, affidavit, plaint, and supporting documents; and Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, which permits an appeal from orders under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4, and 10.

Relying on A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695, the Court held that an ex parte injunction is appealable and that the affected party may either approach the same court or the appellate court.

Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161, and Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd. v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1674, establish that recording reasons under the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 is mandatory, particularly because ex parte injunctions are exceptional and have far-reaching consequences.

Under Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, ex parte injunctions should be granted only in exceptional circumstances after considering urgency, irreparable harm, comparative injustice, good faith, limited duration, and the ordinary three-fold test.

The Court also applied the principles that a temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, as stated in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Chokshi, (2024) 11 SCC 351.

It further relied on Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., (2025) 1 SCC 741, for the proposition that an unreasoned ex parte injunction, particularly against media content, warrants appellate interference because of its impact on constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

The High Court held that the appeal was maintainable because the impugned order expressly granted an ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; the pendency of the application before the trial court did not bar an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r), particularly where the court’s inaction or procedural non-compliance continued to prejudice the affected party.

On merits, the trial court merely stated that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction, without identifying the alleged prima facie right, explaining the urgency, or analysing balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

The High Court found this insufficient under the mandatory requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 and the settled principles governing ex parte injunctions.

The failure was especially material because the injunction restrained journalistic and media content, thereby affecting the defendants’ freedom of speech and requiring heightened judicial scrutiny.

Since the defendants had not been heard and the trial court was the proper forum to assess the application on the complete pleadings and materials, the High Court declined to decide the injunction application itself and remitted it for fresh consideration.

It further held that the trial court’s order was legally unsustainable because it failed to record adequate reasons under Order XXXIX Rule 3 and did not properly consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury.

The appeal was accordingly allowed; the order dated 3 June 2026 granting the ex parte injunction was set aside; and I.A. No. 1 was remitted to the trial court for fresh, reasoned consideration after giving both parties sufficient opportunity to file pleadings and documents, within fifteen days from receipt of the High Court’s order.

All contentions were kept open, and the High Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the suit or the injunction application.