ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition is filed by the plaintiffs seeking the following reliefs. a) Issue a writ of certiorari duly quashing the order dated 26.09.2025 vide Annexure 'A' passed by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in O.S.No.1815/2025 on IA.No.1 filed by the petitioners under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the learned judge of the trial court viz., Hon'ble VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, to consider and dispose of the I.A. No.1 filed by the petitioners under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in O.S.No.1815/2025; c) Grant such other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, by allowing this writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants before the trial Court in OS No.1815/2025. 4. Parties shall be referred to as per the status before the trial Court as plaintiffs and defendants. 5. Suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction against the defendants. Along with the plaint, plaintiffs filed an application in IA No.1 seeking for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in favour of third parties either by them or by their family members, authorized persons, supporters, henchmen, agents or any person or persons claiming any right under or through them by granting interim order of temporary injunction. 6. Upon hearing the plaintiffs, prior to issuance of notice, as the plaintiffs insisted for an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, the trial Court issued emergent notice on IA and suit summons but did not grant the ad- interim order of temporary injunction against which the plaintiffs is before this Court. 7. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents/defendants for the reason that notice is yet to be served to the defendants before the trial Court and the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule I and II read with Section 151 of CPC is for ad- interim order of temporary injunction by dispensing notice to the defendants. 7. This Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents/defendants for the reason that notice is yet to be served to the defendants before the trial Court and the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule I and II read with Section 151 of CPC is for ad- interim order of temporary injunction by dispensing notice to the defendants. Hence, the notice is not ordered by this Court. 8. The short point for consideration before this Court is: 1. Whether this Court needs to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court for non-passing of the order on grant of ad-interim temporary injunction on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC? 2. If so, what order? 9. While considering an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, the following is to be followed. 10. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, it is the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the documents placed by the plaintiff before it, either along with the plaint, or otherwise including the averments made in the affidavit annexed to the application or any material that is produced along with the plaint to prima facie satisfy itself for grant or non-grant of an ad- interim order of temporary injunction. The provisions under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 is also for grant of an ad-interim temporary injunction, by dispensing notice to the defendants in view of the urgency so stated if any and to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 11. It is needless to mention that the trial Court is required to see that if the suit schedule property is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold in execution or defendants threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the property, or there is any threat to dispose the property of the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property, then the court may issue notice to the defendants and, upon appearance of the defendants, consider and pass suitable orders. 12. 12. The proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 provides that the Court has the option of either issuing notice or, in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances where the Court finds that an ad -interim order of temporary injunction is required to be granted prior to issuance of notice on the ground of urgency made out and that the delay in issuance of notice would cause hardship and inconvenience and threat of dispossession to the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property or any damage to the suit schedule property or to the plaintiff, the Court may grant an ad-interim order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice. Therefore, the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 provides this extraordinary relief that could be granted prior to issuance of notice in exceptional circumstances if made out by the plaintiff. 13. In the present case on hand, the trial Court has not adverted to any of these required ingredients in its impugned order. It has merely said, "From the perusal of the entire records and the documents furnished, where there is mentioning of will dated 04.12.1993, hence, the court opines that it would be just and necessary to hear the defendants side and then pass orders on IA No.1." It is relevant to mention that this Court has been seeing time and again several orders passed by the trial Court in this manner where it is simply says that the materials are perused, and without hearing the other side, it may not be proper to pass ex-parte order on the application and issue emergent notice to the defendants along with suit summons. This may not be the proper procedure to be followed by the trial Court when an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC where ad-interim order is pressed by the plaintiff. The trial Court is obligated and is duty bound to consider the application and the materials placed before it for either grant or refusal of the ad-interim ex-parte order. 14. If the trial Court is not inclined to grant an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants, the trial Court is duty bound to provide necessary reasoning to that effect and say so in its order rather than merely saying issue notice and that it cannot be decided prior to hearing the other side. 14. If the trial Court is not inclined to grant an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants, the trial Court is duty bound to provide necessary reasoning to that effect and say so in its order rather than merely saying issue notice and that it cannot be decided prior to hearing the other side. This option is not available to the trial Court. 15. The trial Court would have to invariably advert to the contentions of the plaintiff, it may either allow it or reject it, but reasoning would have to be provided by the trial Court. It would be relevant to cite the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha -vs- Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161 and in the case of Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 as to how the trial Court has to deal with such applications. 16. It is relevant to extract the observation at paragraph Nos.32, 33, 34 and 35 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha - vs- Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others reported in (1993) 3 SCC 161 : "32. Power to grant injunction is an extraordinary 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. 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 us, 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 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 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. 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 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 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 introduction of 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. 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 Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426 : 45 LJ Ch 373] and Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor [ AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : 63 IA 372 : 37 Cri LJ 897] . 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 [ (1975) 1 SCC 559 : AIR 1975 SC 915 ] . 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 a 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…. An ex parte injunction should generally be until a certain day, usually the next motion day….” 17. In the case of Time City infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1674, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraph 5 as under: 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. 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 notice but subject to the condition of complying with Clauses (a) and (b) above said. 18. Therefore, it is a duty cast upon the trial Court while dealing with the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to dispose of the application on the merits of it. But nevertheless, it would have to opine and provide proper reasoning. Of course, it is not required for the trial Court to conduct a mini trial while granting or rejecting the application for the grant of an ad-interim ex-parte injunction. Nevertheless, the trial Court would have to provide reasoning either way, whether it allows or rejects the application for grant of an ad-interim temporary injunction or non grant of an ad-interim temporary injunction. Under the circumstances in the present case, it is seen that the trial Court has not discussed any averments or the contentions of the plaintiff while passing the impugned order, except for merely issuing notice to the defendants. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and is neither in accordance with law. ORDER The petition is disposed of. 2. The matter is remitted to the trial Court to consider the application-IA.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC afresh in accordance with law, and follow the observations made by this Court. 3. Petitioners is permitted to advance the matter and argue the matter for issuance of ad-interim order of temporary injunction, if notice to defendants is not served. 4. 3. Petitioners is permitted to advance the matter and argue the matter for issuance of ad-interim order of temporary injunction, if notice to defendants is not served. 4. In case the defendants appear before the trial Court, on receipt of the summons, if any, issued, trial Court shall hear the matter and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within the time contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 3A read with Section 151 of CPC. 5. It is needless to mention that trial Court shall pass a reasoned order either for grant of an ad interim order or rejection of the ad interim order of temporary injunction.