Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party
Full Text
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.
Plain English Summary
Mandates prior notice to the opposite party before granting an injunction, and strictly regulates ex parte ad interim injunctions by requiring recording of reasons and immediate dispatch of the plaint, application, affidavit, and documents under affidavit of compliance.
Key Legal Elements
- General Rule of Audi Alteram Partem: Notice is the rule; ex parte injunction is an extraordinary exception.
- Mandatory Recording of Reasons: Court must record specific reasons showing how notice/delay would defeat the object.
- Immediate Transmission of Complete Paper Book: Applicant must deliver/post: (i) Injunction application, (ii) Supporting affidavit, (iii) Plaint, (iv) All relied documents.
- Compliance Affidavit on Day of Order / Next Day: Non-filing of compliance affidavit under clause (b) vitiates the ex parte injunction.
- Added by 1976 CPC Amendment: Designed to eliminate the mischief of surreptitious ex parte injunctions.
Practical Note
Mandatory Rigour of Proviso to Rule 3: 1. Mandatory Compliance — A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (2000) 7 SCC 695: The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Rule 3 is mandatory and not directory. If an ex parte injunction is granted without recording reasons or if the plaintiff fails to file the compliance affidavit under clause (b) along with proof of dispatch of plaint and documents, the ex parte injunction is liable to be vacated on this ground alone. 2. Guidelines for Ex Parte Orders — Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994) 4 SCC 225: Laid down eight golden principles for granting ex parte injunctions: (1) whether irreparable injury would ensue, (2) refusal would create greater injustice than grant, (3) time when plaintiff first had notice of the act, (4) whether plaintiff acquiesced, (5) plaintiff acted in good faith, and (6) ex parte order must be for a strictly limited duration.
हिंदी पाठ
न्यायालय उन मामलों को छोड़कर जहां यह प्रतीत होता है कि व्यादेश मंजूर करने का उद्देश्य ही विलंब के कारण निष्फल हो जाएगा, अन्य सभी मामलों में व्यादेश मंजूर करने से पूर्व उसके आवेदन की सूचना विरोधी पक्षकार को देने का निदेश देगा:
परंतु जहां विरोधी पक्षकार को आवेदन की सूचना दिए बिना व्यादेश मंजूर करने की प्रस्थापना है, वहां न्यायालय अपनी इस राय के कारणों को लेखबद्ध करेगा कि व्यादेश मंजूर करने का उद्देश्य विलंब के कारण निष्फल हो जाएगा, और आवेदक से यह अपेक्षा करेगा—
(क) कि वह व्यादेश मंजूर करने का आदेश किए जाने के तुरंत पश्चात, विरोधी पक्षकार को निम्नलिखित के साथ व्यादेश के आवेदन की एक प्रति परिदत्त करे अथवा उसे रजिस्ट्रीकृत डाक द्वारा भेजे—
(i) आवेदन के समर्थन में फाइल किए गए शपथपत्र की प्रति;
(ii) वादपत्र की प्रति; तथा
(iii) उन दस्तावेजों की प्रतियां जिन पर आवेदक निर्भर करता है, और
(ख) कि वह उस दिन जिस दिन ऐसा व्यादेश मंजूर किया जाता है, अथवा उस दिन के ठीक अगले दिन, यह प्रकथन करते हुए एक शपथपत्र फाइल करे कि पूर्वोक्त प्रतियां इस प्रकार परिदत्त कर दी गई हैं या भेज दी गई हैं।