JUDGMENT : ¼1½ vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 104 ,oa vkns'k 43 fu;e 1¼vkj½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k edjkuk] ukxkSj }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 14-03-2023 nhokuh fofo/k uacj 14@23 mekjke cuke rstkjke oxSjg ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh x;h gSA ¼2½ l{ksi esa ekeys ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd izR;FkhZ&oknh }kjk vihykFkhZ&izfroknh la[;k 1 ds fo:) ,d okni= LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk fnukad 14-03-2023 dks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa is'k dj fuosnu fd;k fd oknh ,oa izfroknhx.k dh la;qDr ykbZlsal dh [kku la[;k 14 cksjkoM dqekjh jsat edjkuk ds ekbZfuax {ks= esa vk;h gqbZ gSA mDr [kku dk dqy {ks=Qy 100 xq.kk 100 oxZ ehVj gS ftlesa 25 izfr'kr fgLlk oknh dk gS ftlesa oknh o oknh ds izfrfuf/k;ksa o etnwjksa dks [kuu dk;Z djus] ekcZy iRFkjksa dk nksgu djus] ekcZy CykWd yksfMax&vuyksfMax dj ys tkus o vius fgLls ds iRFkjksa dk cspku o lkbZnkjksa dks nsus rFkk [kku ij yxh gqbZ Øsu dks vkWijsV djus o mi;ksx miHkksx djus esa fdlh izdkj dh :dkoV ck/kk vM+pu ugha Mkys tkus dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izfroknhx.k ds fo:) tkjh djus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA ¼3½ mDr okni= ds lkFk izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa fnukad 14-03-2023 dks gh ,drjQk vkns'k vihykFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr fd;k x;k ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g vihy is'k dh x;h gSA ¼4½ vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls vihy esa ;g vk/kkj fy;k x;k gS fd la'kksf/kr Hkkxhnkjh foys[k ds eqrkfcd vkfcZVªs'ku DykWt gksus ls okni= o vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk izkFkZuk i= gh is'k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS] bl dkj.k ls ,drjQk vkns'k Hkh pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h gS vkSj ,drjQk vkns'k ds laca/k esa dkj.k Hkh vafdr ugah fd;s x;s gaSA vkns'k esa okni=] vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk izkFkZuk i= o lacaf/kr nLrkost] 'kiFk i= Hksts tkus ds vkns'k ugha fd;s x;s gSaA vUr esa fofHkUu vk/kkj of.kZr djrs gq, vkns'k fnukad 14-03-2023 dks [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA ¼5½ cgl vihy lquh xbZA ¼6½ fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd bl ekeys esa vkfcZVªs'ku DykWt gksus ls nkok gh pyus ;ksX; ugha gS] ,slh lwjr esa ,drjQk vkns'k fof/kfo:) gSA bl ekeys esa vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds eqrkfcd ,drjQk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds dkj.k vafdr ugha fd;s x;s gSa vkSj vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vkKkid izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk ugha dh x;h gSA bu vk/kkjksa ij vk{ksfir vkns'k fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa U;k;ky; dk /;ku fofHkUu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k x;kA ¼7½ izR;Fkh@oknh@izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd okn ds pyus ;ksX; gksus ds laca/k esa tks vk/kkj vihy esa fy;s x;s gSa vkSj tks nkSjkus cgl izLrqr fd;s x;s gSa ml laca/k esa vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dk izkFkZuk i= vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;k Fkk] tks izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt gks pqdk gSA mudh vksj ls ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd vk{ksfir vkns'k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k Hkkxhnkjh foys[k ,oa mi[k.M eftLVªsV] edjkuk ds vkns'k vkSj miv/kh{kd o`r edjk.kk ds fu.kZ; dk mYys[k djrs gq, vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS tks vkns'k fof/klEer gSA ,slh lwjr esa vihy vihykFkhZ [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA ¼8½ eSus mijksDr rdksaZ ij euu fd;k] izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ,oa vihy dh i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA ¼9½ fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl}kUr gS fd eqrQjdkr vihy esa vk{ksfir vkns'k ds v'kq) voS/k o vfu;fer gksus ij gh gLr{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gS vU;Fkk ughaA bl fof/kd fLFkfr en~nsutj j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij fopkj fd;k x;kA ¼10½ gLrxr ekeys esa vk{ksfir vkns'k vihykFkhZ o vU; vizkFkhZx.k dks uksfVl fn;s cxSj ,drjQk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS tks vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh ijO;q esa vkrk gSA vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk esa fuEu izko/kku fd;k x;k gS %& "Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party. The Court shall in all case, 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 requirethe 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." ¼11½ vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Shiv Kumar Chadha and Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. (1993) 3 SCC 161 , (1993) 3 SCR 522 Civil Appeal nos. 2531-33 of 1993 Decided on 04.05.1993 ds iSjk la[;k 32 yxk;r 35 esa fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj ;g fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k fd vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds eqrkfcd ,drjQk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds dkj.kksa dks fy[kk tkuk vko';d gS vkSj vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 lhihlh dh vU; 'krksaZ dh ikyuk djuk vko';d gksuk crk;k x;k gS tks iSjk la[;k 32 yxk;r 35 fuEu izdkj gS %& 32. Power to grant injunction is an extra -ordinary power vested in the Court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. Power to grant injunction is an extra -ordinary power vested in the Court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The Courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. That is why Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code requires that in all cases the Court shall, before grant of an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party , except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso has been added to the said rule saying 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...". 33. It has come to our notice that in spite of the aforesaid statutory requirement, the Courts have been passing orders of injunction before issuance of notices or hearing the parties against whom such orders are to operate without recording the reasons for passing such orders. It is said that if the reasons for grant of injunction are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that Court has prejudged the issues involved in the suit. According to as, this is a misconception about the nature and the scope of interim orders. It need not be pointed out that any opinion expressed in connection with an interlocutory application has no bearing and shall not affect any party, at the stage of the final adjudication. Apart from that now in view of the proviso to Rule 3 aforesaid, there is no scope for any argument. When the statute itself requires reasons to be recorded, the Court cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant. 34. The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 the Code. When the statute itself requires reasons to be recorded, the Court cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant. 34. The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 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 object 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 who 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 authority concerned to record reasons before exercising power vested in them. In respect of some of such provisions it has been held that they are required to be complied with but non- compliance thereof will not vitiate the order so passed. But same cannot be said in respect of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39. In respect of some of such provisions it has been held that they are required to be complied with but non- compliance thereof 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 of the proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the introduction of the proviso by the Parliament shall be a futile exercise and part of Rule 3 will be a surplus age for all practical purpose. 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. This principle was approved and accepted in well-known cases of Toylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D. 426, Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor MANU/PR/0020/1936. this Court has also expressed the same view in respect of procedural requirement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare MANU/SC/0511/1975 : [1975] 3 SCR 839. 35. As such whenever a Court considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other side, it must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not passed. But any such ex parte order should be in force up to particular date before which the plaintiff should be required to serve the notice on the defendant concerned. In the Supreme Court Practice 1993, Vol.1, at page 514, reference has been made to the views of the English Courts saying: Ex parte injunctions are for cases of real urgency where there has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion.... In the Supreme Court Practice 1993, Vol.1, at page 514, reference has been made to the views of the English Courts saying: Ex parte injunctions are for cases of real urgency where there has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion.... An ex parte injunction should generally be until a certain day, usually the next motion day.… ¼12½ fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Karni Adivamma And Others vs Karada Chenchu Naidu (1999) 0 Supreme (AP) 728 ds ekeys esa fopkj djrs gq, ekuuh; vkU/kzizns'k mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iSjk la[;k 13 o 14 esa vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa dk fuEuizdkj foospu fd;k x;k gS %& "13. As seen from the order of the learned District Munsif, he passed the order after going through the affidavit Filed in support of the IA and after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The order passed by the Courtbelow does not indicate that he lias recorded the reasons while passing the order, as contemplated under Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code and no direction was given to the petitioner/plaintiff to serve copies of the petition, affidavit, plaint and the documents on which the petitioner relies, to insist the Court to pass, the above said order. The condition imposed in Rule 3 and its satisfaction by recording reasons before granting temporary injunction is mandatory and if no reasons are recorded stating that if temporary injunction is not granted and if notice is ordered, the very purpose would be defeated due to delay. The proviso also mandates the learned District Munsif to direct the petitioner to serve copies of the petition, plaint, and documents on which he relies. As seen from Rule 3, it contemplates that the District Munsif has to record his reasons before granting interim injunction and if notice is ordered, it will defeat the purpose of granting interim injunction due to delay. Proviso to the said Rule mandates that the Magistrate shall direct the petitioner-plaintiff lo serve notice of the affidavit, documents, etc., on which he relies to pursue the Court for passing ex parts temporary injunction and those documents have to be served on the opposite party. Proviso to the said Rule mandates that the Magistrate shall direct the petitioner-plaintiff lo serve notice of the affidavit, documents, etc., on which he relies to pursue the Court for passing ex parts temporary injunction and those documents have to be served on the opposite party. If the above two mandatory requirements are not satisfied under Rule 3 and proviso, any order passed by the District Munsif is violating the mandatory requirements under Rule 3 and the proviso. Therefore, prima facie, it is evident that the learned District Munsif while granting temporary injunction has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 and the proviso. 14. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in Bacharaj Singhvi v. Hastimal Khothari, 1980 (2) ALT 472 has held that it is incumbent upon the Court before granting the injunction to record reasons for its opinion that the object of granting of injunction would be defeated if any delay is caused in the process of notice being served on the respondents. The Court held granting injunction without recording reasons is unsustainable." ¼13½ fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar Road Flying Carrier And Another vs The General Electric Company Of India Ltd. AIR 1990 All 134 esa Hkh vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djrs gq, iSjk la[;k 3 o 6 esa fuEuizdkj dk foospu fd;k x;k gS %& "3. Rule 3 of O. 39, C.P.C. lays down that only in case where it appears to the Court that object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay it has no power to issue ex parte order of injunction. In that circumstance also the court has to record reasons for its opinion that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay. Sri R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent has however, submitted that even if reasons have not been mentioned, yet there was material, which was enough for forming its opinion to grant ex parte injunction order. We cannot agree to this submission, for the simple reasons that where law requires recording of reasons for doing a particular act, the mere presence of material on the record is not sufficient; but it must also be shown that the court has applied its mind to that material. Reasons must find a place in the order ultimately passed by a court. 6. Reasons must find a place in the order ultimately passed by a court. 6. Before parting with this appeal, it must be stressed that the subordinate courts are granting temporary injunction without having any regard to the mandatory provisions of R. 3 of O.39, C.P.C. It is of utmost importance to note that an ex parte order of injunction is an exception, the general rule being that order be passed only after hearing both the parties. It is only in rare cases where the court finds that object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay, the court can issue an injunction ex parte but that too only after recording reasons therefor. It is only in rare cases where the court finds that object of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay, the court can issue an injunction ex parte but that too only after recording reasons therefor. Ex parte injunction is not routine matter and it must be borne in mind by the courts below." ¼14½ mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa dk tks foospu fd;k x;k gS mlls ;g Li"V gS fd lk/kkj.kr;k ,drjQk vkns'k U;k;ky; dks tkjh ugha djuk pkfg, vkSj ;fn U;k;ky; dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd nsjh djus ij fu"ks/kkKk tkjh djus dk mn~s'; gh foQy gks ldrk gS ,slh voLFkk esa vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds izksfotks ds eqrkfcd ,drjQk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds laca/k esa dkj.kksa dk mYys[k fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd fdu dkj.kksa ls ,drjQk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk mfpr le>k tk jgk gS vkSj blds lkFk gh ;g Hkh vkns'k fd;k tkuk pkfg, fd foi{kh i{kdkj dks rqjar izkFkZuk i= dh izfr ds lkFk 'kiFk i= dh izfr] nkos dh izfr vkSj nLrkostkr dh izfr ftu ij izkFkhZ fo'okl dj jgk gS] dks Hkstk tkos vkSj lkFk gh mlh fnu ;k vxys fnu ,d 'kiFk i= bl ckr dk is'k djuk pkfg, fd leLr izfr;ka vizkFkhZ&izfroknh dks ns nh x;h gS vFkok jftLVMZ iksLV ls Hkst nh x;h gSA ¼15½ mDr fof/kd fLFkfr ds ifjizs{; esa vk{ksfir vkns'k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 14-03-2023 esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk mu dkj.kksa dks vafdr ugha fd;k fd fdu dkj.kksa ls ,drjQk vkns'k tkjh fd;k tkuk vko';d gS] ftu dkj.kksa ls ,drjQk vkns'k ikfjr ugha djus ij fu"ks/kkKk dk mn~ns'; gh lekIr gks tk;sxk vkSj lkFk gh vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds eqrkfcd ;g Hkh vkns'k ugha fd;k x;k fd foi{kh i{kdkj dks izkFkZuk i=] 'kiFk i=] okni= o vU; nLrkostkr dh izfr;ka nh tkos ;k jftLVMZ Mkd ls Hksth tkos vkSj bl ckr dk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;k tkos fd leLr dkxtkr foi{kh i{kdkj dks ns fn;s x;s gSa vFkok jftLVMZ Mkd ls Hkst fn;s x;s gSaA ,slh voLFkk esa vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;s tkus ls vk{ksfir vkns'k fof/kfo:) gksus ls vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS vkSj vk{ksfir vkns'k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA ¼16½ fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr vU; U;kf;d n`"Vkar 2005 DNJ (SC) 347 Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot Vs. Baldev Dass, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1570 Jai Singh & Ors. Vs. Gurmej Singh, 2022 (2) Civil Court Cases 136 (H.P.) Sh. Ravinder Singh Vs. Rai Singh & Ors., 2022(4) Civil Court Cases 099 (P&H) Gurmukh Singh Vs. Jagmohan Singh & Anr., 1994 0 AIR(SCW) 2801 Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das, vkns'k 39 fu;e 3 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ls lacaf/kr ugha gksus ls gLrxr ekeys esa bl Lrj ij lqlaxr ugha gksus ls mudk foospu ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA bu U;kf;d n`”Vkarksa dk dksbZ ykHk gLrxr ekeys esa vihykFkhZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS A vr% vihy vihykFkhZ@izfroknh@vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vij ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] edjk.kk ftyk ukxkSj }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 14-03-2023 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS lkFk gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds izkFkZuk i= dk ;FkklaHko 'kh?kz fuLrkj.k fd;k tko