Order Merely Issuing Notice on Interim Injunction Not Appealable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently reaffirmed that an order merely issuing notice on an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not constitute an appealable order under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, dismissed an appeal filed by Perpetual Vision LLP & Anr. against an order of the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Saket, which had issued notice to the defendants in a commercial suit.

The order, dated November 3, 2025, directed summons to be served through all permissible modes, including electronic communication, and specified the timelines for filing a written statement and affidavit of admission or denial of documents.

Pepetual Vision contended that the order amounted to a constructive rejection of their application for an ex parte interim injunction, relying on Supreme Court precedents and arguing that the matter fell within the appealable provisions of Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC.

They also pointed to the phrase “submissions heard” in the order, suggesting it signaled a substantive decision.

Rejecting these arguments, the High Court clarified that an order issuing notice to the opposite party under Order XXXIX Rule 3 is procedural in nature and cannot be construed as a final adjudication under Order XXXIX Rule 1. 

"The impugned order neither grant nor rejects the appellant's application for injunction. It merely issues notice to the opposite party to respond to the application. In doing so, therefore, the learned Commercial Court has exercised the power conferred on it by Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC.", the court said.  

The bench also emphasized that the legislature had consciously excluded Rule 3 from the list of appealable orders under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) to prevent routine procedural notices from being dragged into appeals. The Court dismissed the argument regarding the wording “submissions heard” as irrelevant to appealability.

Citing precedents, including Sahil Singh Maniktala v Harpreet Singh and Nisha Raj v Pratap K. Kaula, the court held that notice orders are steps in aid of adjudication, not final judgments, and only in very rare circumstances, where restitution or compensation is impossible, could such orders be considered appealable.

The court observed that cases like property disputes or injunctions restraining disposal of property do not fall into this rare category because remedies like restoration of status quo or compensation are available.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, without entering into the merits of the dispute.