Reasoned ex parte injunctions are mandatory; absence of reasons can justify Article 227 interference and fresh hearing.

An ex parte interim injunction must comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC by recording reasons for dispensing with notice and by showing why delay would defeat the object of relief; failure to state such reasons, or to explain the basis for status quo, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, amounts to procedural illegality and violation of natural justice. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may still be invoked despite an appellate remedy where the subordinate court order shows a patent jurisdictional or procedural defect and cannot be effectively tested on merits because it is unreasoned. On that basis, the ex parte interim order was set aside and the interim application remitted for fresh consideration after hearing both parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against the ex parte interim order; (ii) Whether the impugned order granting status quo and interim relief without recording reasons complied with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against the ex parte interim order.

Analysis: The availability of an appellate remedy did not, by itself, bar exercise of supervisory jurisdiction where the subordinate court order disclosed a patent jurisdictional or procedural defect. The Court applied the settled principle that supervisory jurisdiction may be invoked to correct a manifest error apparent on the face of the record and to prevent failure of justice, particularly where the impugned order is incapable of being effectively tested on merits because it contains no reasons.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order granting status quo and interim relief without recording reasons complied with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order XXXIX Rule 3 requires notice before granting injunction, and if notice is dispensed with, the court must record reasons showing that delay would defeat the object of injunction. The impugned order did not disclose why notice was dispensed with, did not record satisfaction on prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury, and did not explain the basis for granting ex parte status quo. The absence of reasons amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement and a violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned order was illegal and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction, set aside the ex parte interim order, and directed fresh consideration of the interim application after affording opportunity to both parties.

Ratio Decidendi: An ex parte injunction order that dispenses with notice must record reasons showing why delay would defeat the object of relief, and failure to do so constitutes a patent error justifying supervisory interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

---