TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOW versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOW versus THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

The proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC imposes mandatory obligations on both the court to record reasons for granting an injunction without notice and on the applicant to comply with clauses (a) and (b); non-compliance permits vacating the ex parte order and directing a fresh bipartite hearing on the injunction application, and the Supreme Court, in the present SLP, disposed the petition leaving the matter to the trial court to hear both parties and decide the injunction application on merits.

Parties
Petitioner: Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow; Respondent: The State of U.P. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 21747 of 2025 / SLP Disposed by Supreme Court; Matter Remitted for Injunction Hearing Before Trial Court
Outcome
Special Leave Petition disposed of
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Injunction, Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, Proviso to Order 39 R.3, Recording Reasons for Ex Parte Orders, Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction, Vacation of Ex Parte Injunction for Non Compliance
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Ex Parte Injunction Order 39 Rule 3 CPC Proviso to Order 39 R.3 Recording Reasons for Ex Parte Orders Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction Vacation of Ex Parte Injunction for Non Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow

Petitioner

The State of U.P. & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) No. 21747 of 2025 / SLP Disposed by Supreme Court; Matter Remitted for Injunction Hearing Before Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was complied with when the trial court granted an ex parte injunction
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with the proviso permits vacating an ex parte injunction without expressing any opinion on merits
  3. 3 Whether the High Court correctly set aside the trial courts ex parte order and directed fresh consideration

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC imposes mandatory obligations on both the court to record reasons for granting an injunction without notice and on the applicant to comply with clauses (a) and (b); non-compliance permits vacating the ex parte order and directing a fresh bipartite hearing on the injunction application, and the Supreme Court, in the present SLP, disposed the petition leaving the matter to the trial court to hear both parties and decide the injunction application on merits.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petition disposed of

Orders

  • No interference with the High Courts order; trial court to hear both parties and decide the injunction application on merits in accordance with law
  • Matter remitted to the trial court to hear the injunction application afresh (hearing directed to take place on 12-08-2025 as noted)