Order Issuing Notice On Temporary Injunction Plea Not Appealable Under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an order passed by a trial court, which only issues notice on an application for temporary injunction, would not constitute an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264]The single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, dismissing a batch of four appeals filed by plaintiffs, held that a trial court...
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an order passed by a trial court, which only issues notice on an application for temporary injunction, would not constitute an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264]
The single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, dismissing a batch of four appeals filed by plaintiffs, held that a trial court order issuing notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, without granting or refusing the ad-interim injunction, would not be amenable to an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).
“…when there is a clear remedy available under the Code of Civil Procedure as to what orders could be challenged under the appeal and what cannot be, it is not for this Court to get into the mind of the legislature to infringe into the legislature's forte…Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to infringe into the wisdom of the legislature which conspicuously has not included Rule 3 of Order XXXIX in the appeal provisions provided under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r)”, the court noted in the order.
The plaintiffs were challenging orders passed by a Bengaluru City Civil Judge in two separate suits. While considering applications for ad interim injunction against alienating the suit properties or putting up further constructions there, the trial court only issued notices to the defendants, observing that orders can be passed only after hearing both parties.
The plaintiffs/ appellants contended that the trial court had failed to apply its mind and the order refusing to grant ad interim injunction was arbitrary.
The court, on the other hand, noted that Order XLIII Rule 1(r) provides for an appeal only against orders under Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 2A, Rule 4, and Rule 10 of Order XXXIX.
“…Conspicuously, Rule 3 of Order XXXIX is not spelled out and it is evidently not available for an appeal remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1. The Legislature in its wisdom has clearly provided the necessary provisions to attract the relevant appeal or remedy that is available to be challenged before the appropriate forum”, the Court observed.
The Court explained that under Order XXXIX Rule 3, a trial court has two options when an application for injunction is filed.
Other than choosing to issue notice in an application for injunction, the court could grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
“…In the present case on hand, the learned trial Judge has exercised the discretion to issue notice, but at the same time has neither rejected nor granted the temporary injunction. Therefore, the trial Court, by holding that before passing any orders on the said application it would be appropriate to hear both parties, has issued notice on the said applications and hence, it has kept the applications alive and pending”, the court added.
The Court also referred to judgments of the Delhi High Court in Perpetual Vision LLP vs. Vaibhav S. Pingale(2025) and Nisha Raj vs. Pratap K. Kaula(1994), which noted the same about the application of Order XXXIX Rule 3.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the application, reserving liberty to the appellants to approach the court at the earliest.
Case Title: Suresh Babu J.N. & Ors. v. Jaganmohan & Ors.
Case Nos: MFA No. 3477/2026, MFA No. 3478/2026, MFA No. 3479/2026, MFA No. 3480/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
Appearances: Petitioner- Adv. Thanush Manchil M, for Adv Akkimanjunath Gowda K., Advocates.
Adv. N.S. Sriraj Gowda, Advocate for Respondent