Notice requirements and civil suit bar: ex parte relief against government and challenges to income-tax search action are excluded.

Section 80 CPC requires prior notice, and even where urgent relief is sought with leave of court, no ex parte interim or ad interim relief can be granted against the Government or a public officer without a reasonable opportunity to show cause. That special procedure overrides the general powers under Order 39 Rule 3 and section 151. Section 293 of the Income-tax Act bars civil suits that directly challenge proceedings taken under that Act, including search and seizure action under section 132. On that basis, such suits fall outside civil court jurisdiction and are not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a suit governed by section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court can grant ex parte interim or ad interim relief against the Government or a public officer without first giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. (ii) Whether suits challenging search and seizure proceedings under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are barred by section 293 of that Act and therefore not maintainable in the civil court.

Issue (i): Whether, in a suit governed by section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court can grant ex parte interim or ad interim relief against the Government or a public officer without first giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause.

Analysis: Section 80(1) is mandatory, and section 80(2) permits institution of a suit for urgent or immediate relief without prior notice only with leave of the court. Even where such leave is granted, the court is expressly prohibited from granting any relief, interim or otherwise, unless the Government or public officer is given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. The wording of the provision admits of no exception, and the special procedure in section 80 overrides the general approach under Order 39, Rule 3 and the inherent power under section 151. The proviso to section 80(2) also reinforces that, if no urgent or immediate relief is warranted after hearing both sides, the plaint must be returned for compliance with section 80(1).

Conclusion: Ex parte interim or ad interim relief could not be granted without giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause; the question was answered against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether suits challenging search and seizure proceedings under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are barred by section 293 of that Act and therefore not maintainable in the civil court.

Analysis: Section 293 bars any suit in a civil court to set aside or modify proceedings taken or orders made under the Income-tax Act, and also bars proceedings against the Government or its officers for acts done in good faith under the Act. The impugned civil suits directly challenged search and seizure action taken under section 132 read with rule 112(1), so the substance of the proceedings brought them within the statutory bar. On that footing, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suits.

Conclusion: The suits were barred by section 293 and were not maintainable; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The civil suits and the ex parte injunction orders were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside, and the petitions succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies, no interim or final relief can be granted against the Government or a public officer without first giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause, and where section 293 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies, civil suits directly challenging proceedings under that Act are barred.

---