TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOWversusTHE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

            [2025] 8 S.C.R. 730 : 2025 INSC 966

Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow
                           v.
                The State of U.P. & Ors.
      (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21747 of 2025)
                           11 August 2025
         [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                      Issue for Consideration
 The High Court set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge
 (Senior Division) granting ex parte injunction as prayed for by the
 petitioner – herein in Civil Suit No.447/2025.

                             Headnotes†
 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to Or.39, R.3 – Trial
 Court granted ex parte injunction in favour of petitioner-
 herein (original plaintiff) – Respondents herein (original
 defendants) invoked supervisory jurisdiction of the High
 Court u/Art.227 – The High Court held, inter-alia, that the
 trial Court has not considered the suit in its entirety and no
 reasoning as mandated in terms of proviso of Or.39 R.3 CPC
 has been recorded – Thus, the order passed by the Civil
 Judge (Senior Division) granting ex parte injunction was set
 aside – Correctness:
 Held: Ordinarily an order of injunction u/Or.39, CPC may not be
 granted ex parte – Rule 3 carves out an exception – Conferment of
 this privilege on the party seeking an injunction is accompanied by
 an obligation cast on the court to record reasons for its opinion and
 an obligation cast on the applicant to comply with the requirements
 of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso – Both the provisions are
 mandatory – This Court is of the opinion that if the court is satisfied
 of non-compliance by the applicant with the provisions contained
 in the proviso then on being so satisfied the court which was
 persuaded to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction confiding in
 the applicant that having been shown indulgence by the court he
 would comply with the requirements of the proviso, it would simply
 vacate the ex parte order of injunction without expressing any
 opinion of the merits of the case leaving it open to the parties to
 have a hearing on the grant or otherwise on the order of injunction
 but bipartite only – The applicant would be told that by his conduct
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                                731

       Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v.
                        The State of U.P. & Ors.

     he has deprived the opponent of an opportunity of having an early
     or urgent hearing on merits and, therefore, the ex parte order of
     injunction cannot be allowed to operate any more – In the instant
     case, hearing to take place before the trial Court on 12.08.2025 –
     Trial Court is directed to hear both the parties in so far as the prayer
     of the plaintiff for grant of appropriate injunction is concerned and
     decide the injunction application on merits – No need to interfere
     with the impugned order of the High Court. [Paras 5, 7, 8]

                               Case Law Cited
     Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD [1993] 3 SCR 522 : (1993) 3 SCC
     161 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                              List of Keywords
     Ex parte injunction; Order 39 of CPC; Proviso to Order 39, R.3 of
     CPC; Obligation on court to record reasons; Obligation on applicant
     to comply with clauses (a) and (b) of Order 39, R.3; Vacation of
     the ex parte order of injunction.

                             Case Arising From
     EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
     Petition (Civil) No. 21747 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2025 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in WC No. 6701 of 2025

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv., Shantanu Krishna, Anant Prakash,
     Ms. Suchita Joshi, Sai Shashank, Ms. Sagrika Arya.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                     Order

1.   This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of
     Judicature at Allahabad (Bench Lucknow) dated 24-7-2025 in Writ-C
732                                                             [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       No.6701/2025 by which the petition filed by the respondents –
       herein (original defendants) came to be allowed thereby set asiding
       the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) granting ex
       parte injunction as prayed for by the petitioner – herein in Civil Suit
       No.447/2025. The Trial Court passed the following order dated 9-5-
       2025 while granting ex parte injunction in favour of the petitioner –
       herein (original plaintiff):-
            “Heard on the arguments of the Ld.Counsel for the plaintiff
            on the Application C-6 with affidavit C-7 of the plaintiff on
            ad interim Injunction.
            The plaintiff has filed the Extract of Khatoni of Year 1425-
            1430 C-11/1 Ta 10 at serial no.C-10, Certified copy of
            Agreement to Sell Dated.21.03.2015 at serial no. C-12/1 Ta
            11, Certified Copy of the Sale Deed Dated 30.04.2025 at
            serial no. C-13/1 Ta 11 in support of their prayer in the suit.
            It is the stated by the Counsel for the plaintiff that on
            21.06.2015, after the full and final payment Rs.3,60,12,782/-
            (Rupees Three Crores Sixty Lakhs Twelve Thousand Seven
            Hundred and Eighty-Two Only) to the defendant No.1 as
            Sale Consideration, the defendant No.1 had handed over
            the peaceful physical possession of the land to the plaintiff.
            After the physical possession of the Suit Land, the plaintiff
            had merged the said plot of land in its adjoining plotting
            sites and invested huge funds in terms of lacs and lacs of
            rupees to develop that suit land into plotting for sale. The
            plaintiff company had also developed the suit land with
            good roads and also constructed 02(two) offices on the
            same. The plaintiff company had been in with continuous
            physical possession of the said suit property till date.
            The plaintiff has prayed for specific relief against the
            defendants on the suit property/land bearing Gata/Land
            No.452/1 Rakba 0.057 Hectre, Gata/Land No.607 Rakba
            0.300 Hectre, Gata/Land No.615 Rakba 0.162 Hectre,
            Gata/Land No.616 Rakba 0.162 Hectre Gata/Land No.634
            Rakba 0.304 Hectre with a Total Area of 5 Kita Rakba
            0.985 Hectre, which is situated at Village-Kurouli, Pargana
            & Tehsil-Nawabganj, Dist- Barbanki. Thus, prima facie the
            case is made out by the plaintiff. In the light of the facts and
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                             733

       Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v.
                        The State of U.P. & Ors.

           circumstances and for the protection of the suit property/
           land and in order to prevent further litigation, Parties should
           maintain the status quo in the interest of justice.
                                     ORDER
           Parties are directed to maintain status quo on the title
           and possession of the suit property/ land bearing Gata/
           Land No.452/1 Rakba 0.057 Hectre, Gata/Land No.607
           Rakba 0.300 Hectre, Gata/Land No.615 Rakba 0.162
           Hectre, Gata/Land No.616 Rakba 0.162 Hectre Gata/Land
           No.634 Rakba 0.304 Hectre with a Total Area of 5 Kita
           Rakba 0.985 Hectre, which is situated at Village-Kurouli,
           Pargana Tehsil-Nawabganj, Dist- Barbanki. till the next
           date of hearing and parties are also directed not to sell
           the suit property/land till the next date of hearing.
           Put up for further proceedings on 29.05.2025 for the
           disposal of Application No. C-6, Accordingly notice be
           issued to the defendants for the next date of hearing. This
           order will be binding on the parties those who are made
           parties in the present suit. This order is not binding on any
           Third Party who has interest in the Suit Property/Land.
           The plaintiff to pursue the matter and to abide by the
           direction under Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C.
           The Amin is appointed as Local Commissioner and directed
           to visit the spot for inspection with an advance notice to
           the Counsels of the Parties to be present on the spot.
           He is also directed to inspect the following points and file
           the report.
           1. The Clear cut boundary of the Suit Property/Land is to
           be mentioned in the Report.
           2. The clear cut/ accurate details of measurements of the
           Suit Property/Land are to be mentioned in the Report.
           3. The reference map/naxa has to be prepared and to be
           attached for reference in the Report.
           4. The Reference map /naxa should contain and mention
           the particulars about the Construction/s, Trees and any
           other items found on the suit property.
734                                                               [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


            5. The Reference Map/Naxa of the Suit property is to be
            prepared on the material which is allowed to prepare the
            Map/Naxa and not on the ordinary paper.
            6. The Area Amin is directed to submit the said report with
            Map/Naxa in the scaly filed book format and also to produce
            the self-attested identity proof of both the parties for the record
            of their presence in the proceeding held by the Local
            Commissioner/Area Amin.
            The Local Commissioner/Area Amin is directed to file the
            said inspection report before this Court within 15 days.
            The plaintiff is directed to contact the Amin with immediate
            effect. The Alhmad/Office is directed to dispatch the order
            with immediate effect.
            Put up for further proceedings on date fixed.”
2.     The respondents (herein) (original defendants) being dissatisfied with
       the order passed by the Trial Court, referred to above, invoked the
       supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the
       Constitution and challenged the same. The High Court in exercise
       of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
       thought fit to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and
       set aside the same. The findings recorded by the High Court in its
       impugned order read thus:-
            “27. From the plaint and the agreement to sell which has
            been placed, it is evident that the entire suit is nothing
            but a legal jugglery. A registered agreement to sell was
            executed in favour of the respondents in the year 2015.
            The time of performance in the agreement was one year
            with a provision that in case the sale deed is not executed
            within a period of one year, the same can be executed
            through Court. No suit for specific performance has
            admittedly been filed by the respondents for execution
            of sale deed in their favour. The agreement to sell does
            not even record that the respondents are being put in
            possession in pursuance to the agreement to sell so as
            to enable the respondents to claim the benefit flowing
            from Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. The suit in
            question was filed after the limitation for filing the suit for
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            735

       Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v.
                        The State of U.P. & Ors.

           specific performance had come to an end. The prayer in
           the suit besides mandatory injunction, is to declare the
           sale deed dated 30.04.2025 as null and void. The entire
           suit does not disclose as to how the respondents claim
           to be the owner of the property which has been sold by
           virtue of the sale deed dated 30.04.2025.
           29. Thus, the entire suit was based upon no claim with
           regard to ownership of the property or claiming any benefit
           of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act. There is no
           relief for specific performance even in the suit filed in
           the year 2025. The trial Court has passed the order in a
           cursory manner, the trial Court has not considered the suit
           in its entirety. It has not even recorded any existence of a
           prima-facie case, the balance of convenience or irreparable
           hardship - the three sine qua non for grant of mandatory
           injunction. No reasoning as has been mandated in terms of
           proviso of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC has been recorded. The
           manner in which the injunction has been granted cannot
           be ignored by this Court while exercising its power under
           Art. 227 of the Constitution.
           32. District Judge, Barabanki is directed to transfer
           Suit No.447 of 2025 to any other Court of competent
           jurisdiction except Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court
           No.20, Barabanki.
           33. The Court to which the proceedings will be transferred
           shall decide the injunction application afresh within a period
           of 15 days as the objections have already been filed.
           34. In view of the manner in which the order is passed, the
           same cannot be appreciated. Thus, Senior Registrar of this
           Court is directed to place a copy of the order passed by
           the Civil judge (Senior Division), Court No.20, Barabanki
           alongwith a copy of the suit, a copy of the injunction granted
           and a copy of this order before the Administrative Judge of
           District Barabanki who may, if deems appropriate, take
           action on the administrative side.”
3.   Heard Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the
     petitioner (original plaintiff).
736                                                           [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


4.     Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:-
            “Rule 3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to
            opposite party.— The Court shall in all cases, except where
            it appears that the object of granting the injunction would
            be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction,
            direct notice of the application for the same to be given
            to the opposite party:
            Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction
            without giving notice of the application to the opposite
            party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion
            that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated
            by delay, and require the applicant—
                 (a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to
                 him by registered post, immediately after the order
                 granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the
                 application for injunction together with —
                 (i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the
                 application;
                 (ii) a copy of the plaint; and
                 (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant
                 relies, and
                 (b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is
                 granted or on the day immediately following that day,
                 an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have
                 been so delivered or sent.”
5.     Looking to the scheme of Order 39, CPC it is clear that ordinarily
       an order of injunction may not be granted ex parte. The opposite
       party must be issued a notice and heard before an injunction may
       be granted. Rule 3 carves out an exception in favour of granting an
       injunction without notice to the opposite party where it appears that
       the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay.
       Conferment of this privilege on the party seeking an injunction is
       accompanied by an obligation cast on the court to record reasons
       for its opinion and an obligation cast on the applicant to comply with
       the requirements of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso. Both the
       provisions are mandatory. The applicant gets an injunction without
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          737

       Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v.
                        The State of U.P. & Ors.

     notice but subject to the condition of complying with Clauses (a)
     and (b) above said.
6.   We may refer to several observations made by this Court in Shiv
     Kumar Chadha v. MCD, reported in 1993 SCC (3) 161. Although
     the observations have been made primarily on the obligation of the
     Court to record the reasons, yet in our opinion they equally apply to
     the obligation cast on the applicant by the proviso. The provisions
     are mandatory. This Court observed thus:-
           “The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged
           in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Before
           the proviso aforesaid was introduced, Rule 3 said “the
           court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the
           object of granting the injunction would be defeated by
           the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of
           the application for the same to be given to the opposite
           party”. The proviso was introduced to provide a condition,
           where court proposes to grant an injunction without giving
           notice of the application to the opposite party being of
           the opinion that the subject of granting injunction itself
           shall be defeated by delay. The condition so introduced is
           that the court “shall record the reasons” why an ex parte
           order of injunction was being passed in the facts and
           circumstances of a particular case. In this background,
           the requirement for recording the reasons for grant of ex
           parte injunction cannot be held to be a mere formality. This
           requirement is consistent with the principle, that a party
           to a suit, who is being restrained from exercising a right
           which such party claims to exercise either under a statute
           or under the common law, must be informed why instead
           of following the requirement of Rule 3 the procedure
           prescribed under the proviso has been followed. The
           party which invokes the jurisdiction of the court for grant
           of an order of restraint against a party, without affording
           an opportunity to him of being heard, must satisfy the
           court about the gravity of the situation and court has to
           consider briefly these factors in the ex parte order. We are
           quite conscious of the fact that there are other statutes
           which contain similar provisions requiring the court or the
738                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            authorities concerned to record reasons before exercising
            power vested in them. In respect of some of such non-
            compliance therewith will not vitiate the order so passed.
            But same cannot be said in respect of the proviso to Rule
            3 of Order 39. The Parliament has prescribed a particular
            procedure for passing of an order of injunction without
            notice to the other side under exceptional circumstances.
            Such ex parte orders have far-reaching effect, as such
            a condition has been imposed that court must record
            reasons before passing such order. If it is held that the
            compliance with the proviso aforesaid is optional and not
            obligatory, then the proviso by the Parliament shall be a
            futile exercise and that part of Rule 3 will be a surplusage
            for all practical purposes. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of
            the Code, attracts the principle that if a statute requires a
            thing to be done in a particular manner it should be done
            in that manner or not all.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

7.     We are of the opinion that if the court is satisfied of non-compliance
       by the applicant with the provisions contained in the proviso then
       on being so satisfied the court which was persuaded to grant an
       ex parte ad interim injunction confiding in the applicant that having
       been shown indulgence by the court he would comply with the
       requirements of the proviso, it would simply vacate the ex parte
       order of injunction without expressing any opinion of the merits of
       the case leaving it open to the parties to have a hearing on the
       grant or otherwise on the order of injunction but bipartite only. The
       applicant would be told that by his conduct he has deprived the
       opponent of an opportunity of having an early or urgent hearing
       on merits and, therefore, the ex parte order of injunction cannot be
       allowed to operate any more.
8.     However, having regard to the fact that now the hearing is to take
       place on 12-8-2025 i.e. tomorrow before the Trial Court and the
       Trial Court is to hear both the parties in so far as the prayer of the
       plaintiff for grant of appropriate injunction is concerned, we need
       not interfere with the impugned order. The Trial Court shall hear the
       plaintiff and defendants and decide the injunction application filed by
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      739

          Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v.
                           The State of U.P. & Ors.

     the plaintiff on its own merits in accordance with law, without being
     influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the
     High Court in its impugned order.
9.   With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: SLP disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan