Mere notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 is not appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).

The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that a video published by defendant No. 1 on social-media platforms falsely portrayed a dead rat pup in the plaintiff’s Sunpure edible-oil product and was defamatory and disparaging.

It sought permanent and mandatory reliefs and, by I.A. No. 2 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, an interim injunction restraining publication and access to the video and related posts or shares.

The trial court, after hearing the plaintiff’s counsel, considered it appropriate to hear the defendants before deciding the application and issued emergent notice on the application and suit summons; it did not grant or reject the injunction.

The plaintiff appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, seeking to set aside that order and obtain interim relief.

1. Whether an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC is maintainable against an order issuing notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3, without granting or refusing interim injunction.

2. Whether the trial court’s order issuing notice required appellate interference.

3. Whether the alleged divergence in High Court decisions on maintainability warranted reference to a larger Bench.

Section 104 CPC permits appeals only from the orders specified in the Code or another applicable law; Order XLIII Rule 1(r) permits an appeal from orders under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 and 10, but does not list Rule 3.

Order XXXIX Rule 3 generally requires notice to the opposite party before an injunction is granted; its proviso permits an ex parte injunction where delay would defeat its object, subject to recording reasons and complying with the prescribed service and affidavit requirements.

Relying on A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695, the Court stated that, in the ordinary course, an appeal lies against orders under the provisions listed in Order XLIII Rule 1(r), and not while an injunction application remains pending; the Supreme Court also recognised a remedy where the mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3-A is breached.

The Court also referred to Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, (2025) 1 SCC 741.

The trial court had neither adjudicated I.A. No. 2 nor granted or refused an injunction; it had kept the application pending and issued notice so that the defendants could be heard.

The High Court treated that step as one under Order XXXIX Rule 3, rather than an appealable order under Rules 1 or 2.

Because Rule 3 is not included in Order XLIII Rule 1(r), and the application had not been decided, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Court declined a larger-Bench reference, reasoning that Venkatasubbiah Naidu supplied the governing rule and that differing High Court decisions did not justify departing from it.

The plaintiff was given liberty to request the trial court to consider I.A. No. 2; if notice had already been served, the trial court was directed to pass suitable orders on the application within 15 days of receiving a copy of the High Court’s order.

The High Court expressed no opinion on the merits, leaving all contentions open for the trial court.