Summary and Analysis of Time City Infrastructure And Housing Limited Lucknow Vs. The State Of U.p. & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOW vs. THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Supreme Court of India, SLP (Civil) No. 21747 of 2025; Decided on August 11, 2025)

Citation: TIME CITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOUSING LIMITED LUCKNOW vs. STATE OF U.P. & ORS., 2025 INSC 966 (Supreme Court of India)

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets:

• Order 39 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):
  Mandates courts to issue notice before granting injunctions, except when delay would "defeat the object" of injunction.
  Requires courts to record reasons for ex parte injunctions and ensure compliance with procedural safeguards.

• Article 227 of Constitution:
  Grants High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

• Precedent:
  Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD (1993) 3 SCC 161:
  Emphasizes mandatory compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC; non-compliance vitiates ex parte injunctions.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Petitioner: Time City Infrastructure (Plaintiff; obtained ex parte injunction from Trial Court).
  Respondents: State of U.P. & Others (Defendants; succeeded in High Court).

• Property Dispute:
  Land in Village Kurouli, Barabanki (5 plots totaling 0.985 hectares).

• Key Events:
  09.05.2025: Civil Judge (Barabanki) granted ex parte injunction to petitioner, ordering status quo on property.
  24.07.2025: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) set aside the injunction under Article 227, citing procedural violations.
  11.08.2025: Supreme Court declined to interfere but protected petitioner’s right to fresh hearing.

• Core Issue:
  Whether the Trial Court’s ex parte injunction violated Order 39 Rule 3 CPC?

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Trial Court’s Errors

• Violation of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC:
  Granted ex parte injunction without recording reasons why delay would defeat the injunction’s purpose.
  Failed to ensure petitioner complied with procedural safeguards:
  Delivering copies of application/affidavit to defendants.
  Filing affidavit of compliance.

• Insufficient Reasoning:
  Did not evaluate prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury – essential for injunctions.

B. High Court’s Valid Intervention

• Supervisory Power under Article 227:
  High Court rightly set aside the injunction because:
  Suit was filed 10 years after agreement (2015) with no explanation for delay.
  No evidence of handover of possession under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act.
  Injunction order was "cursory" and lacked legal basis.

• Remedial Directions:
  Transferred suit to another court.
  Ordered fresh hearing on injunction within 15 days.

C. Supreme Court’s Ruling

• Upheld High Court’s Order:
  Cited Shiv Kumar Chadha (1993):
  *"Non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC vitiates ex parte injunctions. Recording reasons is mandatory, not a formality."*
  (Paragraph 6)
  Agreed that Trial Court’s order was procedurally flawed.

• Protected Petitioner’s Rights:
  Directed new Trial Court to hear injunction application afresh on 12.08.2025.
  Ordered hearing to be uninfluenced by High Court’s observations.

• Outcome:
  SLP disposed of; no costs.

Key Takeaways

1. Ex Parte Injunctions:
   Courts must strictly follow Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – record reasons and ensure procedural compliance.

2. High Court’s Role:
   Article 227 allows intervention when subordinate courts ignore mandatory procedures.

3. Balanced Justice:
   While setting aside flawed orders, courts must preserve parties’ right to fair rehearing.