Ex parte injunction procedure on the Original Side: non-recording of reasons makes the order appealable, not void.

Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was treated as applicable in principle to ex parte injunctions on the Original Side, but the Chartered High Court's power under Clause 37 of the Letters Patent and Section 129 CPC allows its own original-side rules to govern where not inconsistent with the Code. Chapter XX Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules permits ex parte relief where delay may cause irreparable or serious mischief and does not require recorded reasons. Non-recording of reasons or immediate service of copies therefore made the ex parte order vulnerable on appeal, but not void or a nullity, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to the Original Side of the High Court, and whether an ex parte interim order passed without recording reasons and without immediate service of copies is void.

Analysis: Clause 37 of the Letters Patent and Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preserve the power of a Chartered High Court to regulate its original civil procedure by its own rules, so long as they are not inconsistent with the governing law. Chapter XX Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules permits ex parte orders where delay may entail irreparable or serious mischief, and does not itself require reasons to be recorded. Order 39 Rule 3, introduced by the 1976 amendment, requires reasons and service of copies before granting an ex parte injunction. The two provisions were held to be substantially similar in substance, but the absence of a reasons requirement in the Original Side Rules means that non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 does not render the order void. The failure to record reasons or direct immediate service makes the order vulnerable on appeal, but not a nullity.

Conclusion: Order 39 Rule 3 was treated as applicable in principle, but breach of that requirement did not make the ex parte order void; it only rendered the order liable to appellate scrutiny. The challenge to the ex parte orders therefore failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was not allowed, and the ex parte interim orders were confirmed because sufficient material existed to support them despite the procedural deficiency.

Ratio Decidendi: An ex parte interim order passed without recording reasons is not void where the court has original-side procedural power under its own rules; such non-compliance renders the order defective or vulnerable in appeal, not a nullity.

---