Interim restraint on 66 media outlets reporting on the suit’s subject matter continues until trial court decides injunction plea

The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S. No. 4203 of 2019, challenged under Article 227 an order of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, declining to grant an ad-interim ex parte injunction on I.A. No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and directing notice to the defendants

The High Court had initially restrained the respondents from publishing or broadcasting reports or material relating to the suit, but that interim order was not subsequently extended.

In the meantime, some defendants appeared and filed written statements and objections

The petitioner had not pursued the statutory appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 was maintainable when the petitioner had an efficacious appellate remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC

Whether interim protection should continue while the Trial Court considers and disposes of I.A. No. 1

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC govern applications for temporary injunctions; an order refusing an ad-interim injunction is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The availability of that efficacious statutory remedy was the basis for the Court’s conclusion that the petitioner should not have invoked Article 227 in this case

The Court cited no precedent.

The challenged order declined only ad-interim ex parte relief and directed notice to the respondents.

Because the petitioner had an appellate remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC and had not used it, the Court held the writ petition was not maintainable

Nevertheless, given the pending injunction application and the prior interim order, the Court reserved liberty to seek an early hearing and continued the interim protection until the Trial Court decided I.A. No. 1

The Court did not determine the merits of the injunction application.

The Trial Court was directed to consider and dispose of that application expeditiously, on its merits and in accordance with law, notwithstanding incomplete service on the remaining defendants.

The High Court’s interim order dated 20 June 2019 was extended until disposal of I.A. No. 1