Telangana High Court rules ex parte injunctions under CPC must be appealed, not challenged via revision under Article 227

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 300

March 12, 2026 : The Telangana High Court has dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an ex parte interim injunction granted by a trial court, holding that such orders are appealable and not open to revision under supervisory jurisdiction.

In Civil Revision Petition No. 3835 of 2025, decided on March 12, 2026, Justice P. Sam Koshy declined to interfere with an order passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The trial court had granted an interim injunction without issuing prior notice to the defendants, invoking powers under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The petitioners argued that the injunction was legally flawed because the trial court failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. They contended that notice to the opposite party can only be dispensed with in exceptional circumstances and must be supported by recorded reasons, which were allegedly absent in this case. According to them, the order was passed mechanically and without due compliance with procedural safeguards.

On the other hand, the respondents maintained that the trial court had acted within its jurisdiction, taking into account the urgency and factual background. They also raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, arguing that the petitioners had already filed a vacate stay application before the trial court and had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.

The High Court agreed with the respondents. It emphasized that orders granting temporary or interim injunctions under Order 39 are expressly appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. Relying on settled precedent, including A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, the Court reiterated that when a statutory appeal is available, a revision petition under Article 227 is not maintainable.

Justice Koshy further noted that the petitioners had already approached the trial court seeking vacation of the ex parte injunction, and that application had been pending for several months. In such circumstances, invoking the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction was unwarranted.

On merits, the Court also found that the trial court had recorded prima facie findings indicating misrepresentation and attempts by the defendants to unlawfully project themselves as office-bearers of the plaintiff society. This, according to the High Court, justified the urgency and the decision to grant an ex parte injunction without prior notice.

Concluding that no strong grounds were made out for interference, the High Court dismissed the revision petition as devoid of merit, while granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue their vacate stay application before the trial court. It also clarified that the trial court should decide the matter independently, without being influenced by observations made in the revision proceedings.

Case Reference : Civil Revision Petition No. 3835 of 2025 – Kuppu Suraj Kumar (and six others) v. M/s Yvonne Douglas Foundation (and another); Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. S. Ravi, Senior Counsel (for Mr. D. Jagadeshwar Rao); Counsel for Respondents: Mr. V. Murali Manohar.