Refusal of an ad-interim ex-parte injunction is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The petitioners challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 24 January 2020, which declined to grant an ad-interim ex parte injunction on I.A. No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and instead directed issuance of emergent notice in O.S. No. 95/2020.

On 31 January 2020, the High Court granted interim protection, having regard to an interim order in W.P. No. 1869/2020.

By the time this petition was considered, some respondents remained unserved, and W.P. No. 1869/2020 had been dismissed for non-prosecution.

1. Whether the petitioners could invoke the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to challenge the refusal of an ad-interim ex parte injunction without first pursuing the available statutory appeal.

2. Whether the interim protection granted by the High Court should continue where some respondents had not been served and the related petition that formed the basis for that protection had been dismissed.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC govern applications for temporary injunctions, while an order under those provisions is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court; in this case, the Court declined to exercise that jurisdiction where an alternative statutory appeal was available.

Interim relief affecting parties who have not been served should not continue without affording them an opportunity to contest it.

The Trial Court had considered the injunction request and exercised its discretion by directing notice rather than granting ex parte relief. Because the order was appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the petitioners had an alternative statutory remedy and had not shown a basis for invoking Article 227 instead.

Further, the High Court’s interim protection had remained operative despite some respondents not being served, and the related petition on which that protection was based had been dismissed for non-prosecution.

Given the passage of nearly six years, the Court considered it appropriate for the petitioners to seek an expeditious hearing of I.A. No. 1 before the Trial Court, subject to service on the defendants.

It permitted the petitioners to seek an expeditious disposal of I.A. No. 1 before the Trial Court after service of notice, or to pursue an appropriate appellate remedy, including an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC wherever maintainable.

The Trial Court was directed to decide the application on its merits, in accordance with law, and after hearing the parties; the High Court’s observations were not to influence that decision.