Interim injunction applications cannot be finally adjudicated ex-parte without affording the defendant an opportunity to be heard.

The Respondent/Plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark "NAFIS" in Class 30 for rice, filed a commercial suit for infringement and passing off against the Appellant/Defendant.

The Appellant used the mark "NAFEEZA" with nearly identical trade dress for the same product.

On February 2, 2026, the Trial Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, appointed Local Commissioners, and granted exemption from pre-institution mediation.

Critically, the Trial Court’s order purported to finally dispose of the interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC without issuing notice to or hearing the Appellant.

The Appellant challenged this order, arguing it violated principles of natural justice and failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in finally disposing of an application for interim injunction ex-parte without notice to the Defendant.

2. Whether the reasons recorded by the Trial Court were sufficient to satisfy the requirements for granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.

3. Whether an appeal is maintainable against orders appointing Local Commissioners or granting exemption from pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the CPC regarding the procedure for granting and recording reasons for ex-parte injunctions.

It relied on A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, which requires the court to record reasons for the necessity of an ex-parte order.

Regarding pre-institution mediation, the court applied Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the precedent in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, which allows exemption where urgent interim relief is sought.

For appellate jurisdiction, the court applied Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC.

The High Court observed that while the Trial Court committed a procedural irregularity by "disposing" of the injunction application finally in the Defendant's absence, this was an inadvertent error apparent on the face of the record rather than a ground to set aside the entire relief.

The Court found that the Trial Court had indeed recorded sufficient reasons in paragraph 26 of the impugned order—citing the "triple test" of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—to justify an ad-interim (temporary) ex-parte injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3.

The Court rejected the Appellant’s contention that a few months of prior market presence (since December 2025) precluded an ex-parte order, noting that deceptive similarity in identical trade channels justifies immediate protection.

Furthermore, the Court held that the appointment of Local Commissioners and the grant of mediation exemption were non-appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act and fell within the Trial Court's discretionary domain for urgent matters.

The ad-interim injunction remains in force pending final adjudication by the Trial Court.

The Court directed the Appellant to file a written statement and reply within one week, with a subsequent week for the Respondent’s rejoinder, and ordered the Trial Court to decide the injunction application on its merits by May 30, 2026.

The challenges against the appointment of Local Commissioners and the Section 12A exemption were dismissed.

No costs were awarded.