Ex parte injunction reasons and pendente lite restraint: court upheld interim protection despite lis pendens objections.

Omission to record reasons when granting an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC was treated as directory in substance, so it did not by itself invalidate the order where the record otherwise supported ex parte relief. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act did not bar an injunction restraining pendente lite transfer, because lis pendens does not oust the court's power to preserve the property by interim restraint where warranted. On the materials then before the court, and accepting the application's allegations in the absence of a show-cause response, ad interim injunction was justified. The challenge to the restraint therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether omission to record reasons while granting an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure vitiates the order; (ii) whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act prevents the grant of an injunction restraining pendente lite transfer of the suit property; (iii) whether the materials on record justified ad interim injunction in the present case.

Issue (i): Whether omission to record reasons while granting an ex parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure vitiates the order.

Analysis: The requirement of recording reasons serves an important function in checking the easy grant of ex parte injunctions and in assisting appellate review. However, the provision was treated as directory in substance rather than mandatory in the sense that omission by itself does not compel reversal where the record otherwise discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding ex parte. The reasoning was reinforced by analogy to the rule concerning recording reasons for admission of additional evidence in appeal.

Conclusion: Omission to record reasons did not, by itself, invalidate the ex parte injunction.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act prevents the grant of an injunction restraining pendente lite transfer of the suit property.

Analysis: The doctrine of lis pendens protects the outcome of the suit, but it does not eliminate the Court's power to preserve the property by interim restraint where justice so requires. Order 39 Rule 1 expressly contemplates injunction against alienation or sale, showing that pendente lite transfers may still be restrained in a proper case notwithstanding Section 52.

Conclusion: Section 52 did not bar the grant of an injunction restraining transfer during the pendency of the suit.

Issue (iii): Whether the materials on record justified ad interim injunction in the present case.

Analysis: At the stage of ad interim relief, the allegations in the application were to be accepted as true in the absence of any show cause from the opposite party. On that footing, the facts disclosed a case for interim protection, and the trial Court's exercise of discretion was not shown to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The ad interim injunction was justified on the materials then before the Court.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the injunction failed, and the order of ad interim restraint was maintained with the application for temporary injunction left for expeditious consideration by the trial Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement to record reasons for an ex parte injunction is directory in substance, and the Court retains power to restrain pendente lite alienation by interim injunction despite lis pendens where the circumstances justify such protection.

---