ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff and learned counsel for respondents-defendants. 2. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who has instituted a suit in O.S.No.7977/2025 against the respondents-defendants before the trial Court seeking the following reliefs: "a. To Grant permanent injunction against Defendants, restraining the defendants in any manner either by themselves or through any other ways from telecasting/broadcasting/publishing the fake news about the plaintiff. b. Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from propagating and defendants from telecasting, Publishing, the printed article, Breaking news/news item, Program/debates in any manner in their TV Channel, Web Portal, and social media thereby causing damage to the integrity and reputation of the plaintiff’s without their being any basis actuated with mala-fides. c. Grant any such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.” 4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought for an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants, from transient, publishing, distributing, sharing any materials, transient in any media, newspaper, local cable, operated channels, interest, website, social media etc., or in any manner whatsoever their officials, agents, servants, henchmen, attorney etc., till pending disposal of the suit. The affidavit was also annexed to the said application. 5. The trial Court, after hearing the petitioner-plaintiff on the application for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction filed under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, issued an emergent notice on I.A.No.1 and suit summons to the defendants returnable by 07.01.2026. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff is the Managing Director of Mysuru Fruit Product Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The respondents- defendants are media organisations engaged in print, electronic and digital news dissemination. He further contended that the First Information Report has been registered in crime No.342/2025 before Hebbagodi Police Station against the petitioner-plaintiff based on false and baseless allegations regarding creation of forged General Power of Attorney and another false First Information Report has also been registered in crime No.227/2025 before Kormanagal Police Station against the petitioner-plaintiff. 7. He further contended that the First Information Report has been registered in crime No.342/2025 before Hebbagodi Police Station against the petitioner-plaintiff based on false and baseless allegations regarding creation of forged General Power of Attorney and another false First Information Report has also been registered in crime No.227/2025 before Kormanagal Police Station against the petitioner-plaintiff. 7. Being aggrieved by the said crime No.227/2025, the plaintiff has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29396/2025 before this Court for grant of stay. However, this Court vide its order dated 05.11.2025 has stayed further proceedings/investigation arising out of Crime No.227/2025 of Koramangala Police Station, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.1. 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for plaintiff that when the proceedings and investigation arising out of the crime No.227/2025 have been stayed by this Court, the apprehension of the defendants, who are threatening to publish news articles and reports regarding the FIR, is that it would be prejudicial to the interest and reputation of the plaintiff without due verification or final outcome of investigation, which would cause grave injustice, irreparable harm, damage to the person, defaming the plaintiff in his professional standing in the Society. 9. It is further contented by learned counsel for plaintiff that the investigation on the said crime has been stayed. Therefore, without any proper investigation from the appropriate Authority, the defendants, the print media and electronic media may publicise and sensationalise the news, fake news and defamatory news and constitute a trial by media, thereby the rights of the plaintiff and the presumption of innocence for a fair trial. 10. Learned counsel further contended that such unnecessary fake defamatory false news may affect the reputation of the plaintiff and its stakeholders. He also contended that the fake news may be telecasted and broadcasted by the defendants in the social media, print media and other media and also conduct a media trial, thereby tarnishing the image, defaming the plaintiff and causing irreversible damage to the plaintiff. Hence, he filed a suit against the defendants. 11. Learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon the interim order granted by this Court, wherein this Court stayed the further proceedings/investigation arising out of Crime No.227/2025 of Koramangala Police Station, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.1. Hence, he filed a suit against the defendants. 11. Learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon the interim order granted by this Court, wherein this Court stayed the further proceedings/investigation arising out of Crime No.227/2025 of Koramangala Police Station, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.1. Under the circumstance, if interim order is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, he would suffer irreparable injury and defamatory statements would be published against him, which are fake and not authenticated. Hence, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC before the trial Court to pass an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice to the defendants. The said application has been mechanically dealt with by the trial Court. No orders have been passed either granting or rejecting the application. However, the trial Court has merely issued emergent notice on the said application and with a mere sentence that: "In the case on hand, the Plaintiff has not produced any material documents to show that the defendants intend to publish defamatory content against the Plaintiff. Thus, it is just and proper to hear defendants on I.A.No.1.” 12. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in the suit proceedings, it is the duty and obligation of the trial Court to pass suitable orders on the said application by following Proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC, wherein the plaintiff is seeking relief of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction before issuance of notice to the defendants as the delay in issuance of notice would cause irreparable hardship and injury to the plaintiff. 13. In those circumstances, it is provided in the provision that under extraordinary exceptional circumstances, if the trial Court being satisfied to grant such a relief prior to issuance of notice to the defendant/s, it is not necessary in all cases that the trial Court would have to issue emergent notice or hear the defendant/s before passing an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. There are two stages arising out of the provision under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, i.e., to issue notice and thereafter, hear and pass orders when there is no urgency made out or the delay would not cause any harm to the plaintiff/s. However, on the contrary, when the delay in issuance of notice infringes the personal liberty, right or damage to the property or creates threat to the person or property of the plaintiff/s, the trial Court is obligated and duty bound to pass a reasoned order to protect the plaintiff and preserve his property. 14. It is relevant to note that while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the trial Court would have to consider the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, (1993) 3 SCC 161 , Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 , the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vedant Fashions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Smt. Rajul Devi, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 7191 and also this Court in the case of Karnataka State Cricket Association vs. Shashidhara A.V. in W.P. No. 33725/2025 (decided on 17.11.2025). 15. However, in the present case on hand, the fact is that the trial Court has not bothered to pass a reasoned order either to grant or reject an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable. 16. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER: i. This petition is disposed off. ii. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the application in I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC either to grant or reject and while doing so, the trial Court is bound to provide reasons either way. iii. The trial Court shall pass suitable orders without being influenced by any of the observations made herein, except with regard to following due process of law and adhering to the provisions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, Proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC, the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the judgments of this Court, strictly; iv. The petitioner-plaintiff is at liberty to advance the matter and seek relief from the trial Court; v. It is also needless to mention that the trial Court would have to look into all the materials placed by the petitioner-plaintiff, including the stay order obtained by this Court in W.P.No.29396/2025, wherein this Court stayed the further proceedings/investigation arising out of FIR No.227/2025 of Koramangala Police Station, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.1. The trial Court would have to apply its mind and not treat this matter like any other matter for tangible property, as this matter relates to, the defamatory statements or any media interference that may cause damage to the reputation of the petitioner-plaintiff, which would be irreversible and not compensated by imposing any costs; vi. It is needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any Opinion on the merits of the matter.