In a pivotal decision, the Karnataka High Court has highlighted the necessity for trial courts to provide substantive reasons when granting temporary injunctions without prior notification to the opposing party. This ruling aligns with the stipulations of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which mandates clear justification for such legal measures to uphold judicial fairness and transparency.
Justice H P Sandesh, presiding over the matter, issued a ruling during an appeal from Bowring Institute against a trial court’s decision that favored its member, Sarwik S. The conflict began when Sarwik, a life member, faced disciplinary action after using the swimming pool during restricted hours. Despite his apology, the institute proceeded with a show-cause notice and eventually recommended revoking his membership pending a General Body Meeting scheduled for November 29, 2024.
Before the meeting could take place, the trial court intervened with a temporary order that halted the institute’s actions against Sarwik. Bowring Institute contested the trial court’s approach, criticizing it for not providing a rationale for bypassing the requirement to notify them before issuing the injunction, which they argued was speculative and prematurely assumed the General Body Meeting’s agreement on Sarwik’s removal.
Sarwik, on his part, defended the injunction, arguing that such ex parte orders are not typically subject to appeals. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the trial court’s justification—merely reviewing the documents—was insufficient for such a drastic measure.
Ultimately, the bench decreed that the injunction was issued without adequate justification, making the trial court’s order legally untenable. The High Court annulled the previous injunction and remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to review the matter comprehensively and reach a decision within 30 days.
