The Court held that the orders of 25.02.2013 and 13.08.2015 did not justify modification or annulment under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC because the application filed by the applicant did not meet the requirements of the second reservation of Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. The court found that the trial court had not erred in dismissing the plaintiff`s claim under Order 39, Rule 4 CCP. HC dismissed the appeal. The Court noted that the second reservation to Order 39 Rule 4 CCP provides that where an injunction has been issued after a party has had an opportunity to be heard, that order may not be enforced, varied or revoked unless such revocation, modification or cancellation was necessary because of a change in circumstances or the court is satisfied that: that that party`s injunction has caused undue hardship. The communication was served on Respondent 3, but no one appeared. Therefore, he proceeded ex parte. The appellant challenges the decision dismissing the application filed by the appellant and the respondent under Order 39 Rule 4 CCP. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the court found that the application filed did not meet the requirements of the second reservation of Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, so that these orders did not justify modification or annulment under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as the Court found that the appeal was not well-founded. After hearing both parties, the court concluded that the order under appeal concludes that an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC is admissible only if, in the application for an injunction or in the affidavit in support of such an application, a party has provided false and misleading information about a significant person and the injunction was issued without notice to the opposing party.
The question now arises as to which provision of procedural law should be sought in order to achieve the desired facilitation of setting aside an ex parte ad interim interim order in the exercise of the power conferred by Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Delhi High Court considered the application to challenge the order dismissing the appellant and respondent No. 1`s application under Order 39 Rule 4 CCP. STATE AMENDMENTS Madhya Pradesh: In Article 4 (i), after the words “by the Court”, the words “for reasons to be recorded ex officio or” shall be inserted; and (ii) add at the end the following caveat: “If, at any point in the dispute, the court finds that the party in whose favour the injunction exists is delaying the proceedings or abusing the judicial proceedings, it shall lift the injunction.” [Act MP 29 of 1984]. “that the aggrieved party has two options against an interim injunction; either to apply to the same court (Order 39, Rule 4) that had made a unilateral redress order, or to appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. “If an interim injunction is issued under Order 39, R.1 or 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether ex parte or not, it is subject to appeal because O. 43, R.1 (r) allows a party aggrieved by an order made under O.39, R.1 or 2 to give preference on appeal. We therefore consider that the Court cannot dismiss an appeal solely on the ground that it is provisional, provisional or provisional. Similarly, injunctions issued under Articles O.1 or 2 are, by their very nature, always issued ex parte, and Parliament is fully aware of the situation in which appeals against such decisions may be brought. In our view, therefore, an injunction, whether provisional, interim or provisional, may be challenged if it is issued under paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article O.39.
In reviewing Order 43, R.1(r), we find that it is stated that an appeal must be made against an “order” under sections R.1, R.2-A, R.4 and R.10 of Order 39. Therefore, any order under sections 1, 2, 2-A and 4 is questionable. However, there are a number of decisions in which it has been held that an injunction under section 39, Rr.1,2,2-A is not objectionable because it is provisional, unilateral or non-verbal. At the same time, however, the High Courts recognise the right to appeal such orders under section 39, R.4 of the Code. An interim injunction that is not granted provisionally or provisionally is reviewable but not subject to appeal, although the characteristics of the impugned decision are absolutely the same in both Articles 39, R.4 and O. 43, R.1 (r) and appear incompatible. If it is an injunction, it is also subject to appeal. If it is an interim injunction, it may be reviewed in accordance with O.39, R.4. From this point of view, we have difficulty accepting the reasoning and we respectfully disagree from the point of view. To begin by analyzing why this fact is neglected in practice, we will refer to the rules of natural justice, which require that when an application under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39, C.C.P.
is brought before a court, the person or persons against whom the remedy is sought must have the opportunity to: to be heard. But sometimes, a situation or circumstance may require immediate intervention by the court to make an order which, if not made, may result in a failure of justice and would defeat the very purpose of such an application. In such a situation, the court may dispose of the application for an injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.C.P. before giving notice to the person or persons against whom the appeal is made. Accordingly, an injunction will be granted to the Interim Board in the exercise of the power conferred by Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.C.P. For the purposes of this section, we assume that an order has been issued against you under 39 Regulations 1 and 2 CPC. In view of the establishment of the Commercial Court and its provisions, the Law on the Code of Civil Procedure (Amending Act) of 2016 was promulgated. These provisions apply to commercial disputes of a specific value. The Act specified that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by law, would prevail over any provision of the High Court or amendment made by the government of the Land concerned. [3] “The above-mentioned rule offers triple protection to the parties against whom the unilateral injunction has been issued. First, the legal requirement that the court must endeavour to make a final decision on the application for an injunction within the 30-day period.
Second, the legal requirement that, if, for valid reasons, the court has not been able to give a final decision on the claim within the above-mentioned time limit, it must record the reasons in writing. “At the time of the summons in the application under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 CPC, the court found that an order for the supply of industrial oil had been issued against Defendant No. 3 and that payment was payable by letter of credit after 180 days. Respondent 3 had contacted the bank to redeem the letter of credit. The claimant argued that the goods had not been delivered. According to the applicant, the documents attached to Respondent 3`s letter of credit, i.e. invoices and truck receipts, were falsified. In view of the above-mentioned statements made on behalf of the plaintiff, the court issued an interim injunction on the repayment of the letter of credit. Respondent 2 commenced an action for a declaration and deletion of documents and an interim injunction. The following decisions under section 104 may be appealed, namely: (r) an order made under Rule 1, Rule 2 [Rule 2A], Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Regulation XXXIX; Mr A.S.
Chandhiok, who appeared on behalf of the defendants, argues that the failure to comply with the application filed by the defendant on 3.4.2007 pursuant to Order 39 Rule 4 within 30 days is contrary to the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3 A CPC. Consequently, the defendants were entitled to bring the present appeal against the contested decision. It is based on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S.Chellappan AIR 2000 SCC 3032. Next, he submits that the interim injunction granted should be set aside for several reasons. Thus, as a practising lawyer, the wording and purpose of Rule 1(r) of Order 43 and the scheme of Rules 1 to 4 of Order 39 show that an appeal may also be made against the unilateral injunction of the Order. As soon as an injunction is issued and the person concerned is informed of it, two remedies are available to the applicant: (1) he may either revoke or vary the unilateral order or revoke it in accordance with Rule 4 of Order 39 and, if unsuccessful, exercise the right of appeal provided for in Order 43; Rule 1(r) or (2) immediately appeal under Order 43; Rule 1(r) against an injunction issued under Rules 1 and 2 of the Order 39. C.C.P. It is not uncommon to provide alternative remedies. For example, if an ex parte decision is made against a person, that person has two remedies: either he or she can appeal the ex parte judgment, or he or she can try to have the ex parte judgment set aside by the same court.
