Court Affirms Non-Maintainability of Appeals Against Orders Merely Issuing Notice Under Order XXXIX Rule 3
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, dismissed a series of appeals filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, Sri Suresh Babu J N and others, challenging the trial court’s orders that merely issued notices under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) without granting or rejecting the temporary injunction sought by the plaintiffs. The case, involving Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 3477 to 3480 of 2026, stems from disputes over property rights wherein the plaintiffs sought ad-interim temporary injunctions to prevent defendants from alienating or constructing on the disputed properties.
The trial court had decided to issue notices on the applications filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, opting to hear both parties before making any decision. The appellants contended that the orders were arbitrary and sought to invoke appellate jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC, arguing that the trial court failed to grant the necessary ex-parte injunctions.
However, the Karnataka High Court clarified that an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) is not maintainable against an order that merely issues notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3. The court highlighted that the legislative intent excludes appeals against such procedural orders, which do not constitute final orders. Justice Yerur emphasized that the trial court retains discretion in issuing notices and that such procedural steps do not attract appellate remedies.
The court also noted that plaintiffs have alternative remedies, such as seeking urgent consideration of their applications at the trial court level. Justice Yerur cited multiple precedents, including the rulings of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, to support this position, underscoring the importance of adhering to legislative frameworks that limit appeals to substantive orders.
Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, with the court reserving liberty for the appellants to seek alternative remedies or approach the trial court for expedited hearings. The judgment reinforces the procedural rigor in civil litigation, ensuring that only substantive judicial decisions are subject to appellate review, thereby streamlining judicial processes.
Bottom line:-
An appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC is not maintainable against an order of the trial court merely issuing notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 without granting or rejecting the ad-interim ex-parte injunction sought.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 3, Order XLIII Rule 1(r)
Sri Suresh Babu J N v. Sri Jaganmohan, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2947331
