Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010112322025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/31/2025 M/S PROTECH HOUSING AND 10 ORS. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OFTHE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604, PROTECH CENTRE, 6TH FLOOR, GANESHGURI, G.S . ROAD, GWAHATI, IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM PIN-781006, REP. BY ITS MAJORITY PARTNER SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL, S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL, R/O. 1A, MONALISA PATH, GEETANAGAR, P/S. GEETANAGAR, ZOOR ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024. 2: LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 3: SHILPI ANAND SINGHAL W/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 4: M/S. PROTECH GRAND A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OFTHE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604 PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI Page No.# 2/17 G.S . ROAD GWAHATI IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 REP. BY ITS MAJORITY PARTNER SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 5: M/S. PROTECH REALITY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OFTHE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604 PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S . ROAD GWAHATI IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 REP. BY ITS MAJORITY PARTNER SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 6: M/S. PROTECH PLANNERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OFTHE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604 PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S . ROAD GWAHATI IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 REP. BY ITS MAJORITY PARTNER SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH Page No.# 3/17 GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 7: M/S. PRIME PROMOTERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OFTHE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604 PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S . ROAD GWAHATI IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 REP. BY ITS MAJORITY PARTNER SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 8: M/S PARADISE PROPERTIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OFTHE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604 PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S . ROAD GWAHATI IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 REP. BY ITS MAJORITY PARTNER SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 9: M/S. PELICAN BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OFTHE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT Page No.# 4/17 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604 PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S . ROAD GWAHATI IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 REP. BY ITS MAJORITY PARTNER SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 10: M/S. LOKESH ENTERPRISES LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT 2008 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604 PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S . ROAD GWAHATI IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 REP. BY ITS MAJORITY PARTNER SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 11: M/S. AERO CITY PROJECT LLP. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT 2008 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT 604 PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S . ROAD GWAHATI IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781006 Page No.# 5/17 REP. BY ITS MAJORITY PARTNER SRI LOKESH ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SHRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR P/S. GEETANAGAR ZOOR ROAD GUWAHATI-781024 VERSUS INDUSIND BANK AND 7 ORS. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, GANESHGURI BRANCH, GROUND FLOOR, PROTECT CENTRE, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781006, HAVING ITS GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, HOLDING NO. 4, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781005 AND ITS REG. OFFICE AT 2401, THIMMAYYA RD. (CANTONMENT), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-41101. 2:REGIONAL HEAD INDUS BANK GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR HOLDING NO. 4 G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH VILL. ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781005. 3:MANOJ KR. JAIN S/O. LT. MAHABIR PRASAD JAIN R/O. GEETA MANSION MG PATH CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781005. 4:VIVEK ANAND SINGHAL S/O. SRI ASHOK ANAND SINGHAL R/O. 1A MONALISA PATH GEETANAGAR ZOO ROAD GUWAHATI-781024. 5:AERO CITY BUILDCON PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE LIMIDET COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE Page No.# 6/17 COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND OR 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M0 ASSAM PIN-781006. REP BY ITS DIRECTOR. 6:GIRIRAJ DEALCOM BUILDCON PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE LIMIDET COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND OR 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M0 ASSAM PIN-781006. REP BY ITS DIRECTOR. 7:NATURAL TRADERS PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE LIMIDET COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND OR 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M0 ASSAM PIN-781006. REP BY ITS DIRECTOR. 8:TRANSWORLD INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. A PRIVATE LIMIDET COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND OR 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT PROTECH CENTRE 6TH FLOOR GANESHGURI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M0 ASSAM Page No.# 7/17 PIN-781006. REP BY ITS DIRECTOR Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. V RAI, MR A K RAI,MR.T YADAV,MR. S P ROY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B D DEKA (R-3,5,6,7,8), MR A DEKA (R-3,5,6,7,8),N CHAUDHURY (R-3,5,6,7,8),MR. M DAS (R-3,5,6,7,8) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. B. D. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8. 2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the said Code has been filed by the appellants impugning the order dated 08.05.2025 passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 394/2025 arising out of Title Suit No. 266/2025 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati by which ex-parte ad-interim injunction was prayed for by the appellants was refused and notice has been issued to the opposite parties. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the Protech Group is a leading builder and real estate developer in Guwahati and has undertaken in projects to develop and construct apartments buildings in various places. The said groups comprises of multiple entities under it, namely, Partnership Firms, Private Limited Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Lokesh Anand Singhal and Shilpi Anand Singhal are the partners of appellant Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 Page No.# 8/17 Partnership Firms and they are also partners of appellant No. 10 in the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) as well as Directors of respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 companies, which are all the entities of Protech Group.The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the banks in which majority of the bank accounts of Protech Group are held. The respondent No. 3, Shri Manoj Kumar Jalan and respondent No. 4, Shri Vivek Anand Singhal are also partners of appellant Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 partnership firms and partners of appellant Nos. 10, 11 LLPs as well as Directors of respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 companies, which are all the entities of Protech Group. 4. The present appellants, as plaintiffs, had filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 266/2025 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati against the present respondents for declaration and permanent/mandatory injunction. 5. It is averred in the plaint by the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 2, Shri Lokesh Anand Singhal executed a conditional power of attorney on 07.11.2019 appointing the defendant No. 4 (Vivek Anand Singhal) as his attorney authorizing him to sign and execute documents on his behalf upon fulfilling terms and conditions contained in said conditional power of attorney. However, it is alleged in the plaint that the defendant, Shri Manoj Kumar Jalan in collusion with defendant Vivek Anand Singhal had fraudulently executed a deed of reconstruction of M/S Pride Realty violating the mandatory conditional provisions contained in the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff No. 2. 6. It has been alleged in the plaint that the same was done with the intention of putting sideline and outs the plaintiff No. 2 from the affairs of the group and with an intention of defendant No. 3 of taking over control of the Page No.# 9/17 group in an illegal manner. It is also alleged in the plaint that the defendant No.3, Shri Manoj Kumar Jalan while being the Managing Director of the Protech Group is parallelly running another real estate group under the brand name of “Ambika Group” and allegations are made in the plaint of defendant No. 3 misappropriating and siphoning the funds of Protech Group for his own interests to the Ambika Group. Allegations are also made against defendant No. 3 regarding false over-billing and under delivery of materials at the Protech Group and getting excess balance of these materials delivered to the sites of his own group i.e., Ambika Group. Several other allegations of financial irregularities by defendant No. 3 has been made in the plaint. It is also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff No. 2 had also lodged an FIR on 10.05.2024 at Dispur Police Station against defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of which Dispur P.S. Case No. 425/2024 under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered. 7. It has been further averred in the plaint that thereafter on the basis of a complaint made by plaintiff No. 2, on 14.05.2024,the IndusInd Bank i.e., Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had freeze the account of certain entities of Protech Group. However, later on defendant No. 3 Manoj Kumar Jalan was made authorized Signatory and the accounts were unfrozen. 8. It has been further averred in the plaint that after multiple attempts of persuasion between the parties, they agreed to settle their disputes by executing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 23.09.2024 to settle their dispute and distribute the assets of the Protech Group. However, it is alleged in the plaint that even after the execution of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 23.09.2024, the defendant No. 3 had not acted as per the understanding Page No.# 10/17 arrived at in terms of Memorandum of Understanding. It has been alleged that he is continuing with his misdeeds and trying to bring the Protech group to the verge of bankruptcy by promoting the interests of Ambika group. 9. Ultimately, the plaintiff No. 2 wrote another letter on 10.12.2024 to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to conduct a re-KYC exercise for them to know the actual owner of the Protech Group and also requested to freeze the bank account of Protech Group if required, however, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 bank, by letter dated 13.12.2024 had replied to him that they have freeze the bank accounts of only one of the entities, namely, M/S Pride Realty as the plaintiff No. 2 was found to be a partner of one of the entities and he was not the partner/Director of the rest of the entities of the Protech Group as per bank's records. In the meanwhile, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 approached the Court by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 205/2024 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup(M) and obtained an ex-parte order dated19.12.2024 against the freezing order of the bank account of M/S Pride Realty. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the ex-parte interim order of injunction was obtained by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 205/2024by suppressing the material facts and by giving misleading statements before the Court. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the bank (defendant Nos. 1 and No. 2) still only accepts Shri Manoj Kumar Jalan as sole financial signatories for signing on cheque and debt instruments without any authorization letter by board for all entities of Protech Group and has not Page No.# 11/17 allowed any other partners or directors to sign such cheque or debt instruments which is in total violation of the clauses of Partnership Deal/Agreements of Protect Group of entities. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by allowing the defendant No. 3 to operate the bank accounts without re-verification of KYC has violated the RBI norms and KYC rules in this area. He has further submitted that by allowing the defendant No. 3 to operate the bank accounts in violation of the KYC norms, the bank has shown that there is a collusion between defendant No. 3 and the bank in this regard. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the defendant No. 3 has been operating the bank accounts of Protech Group single- handedly in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the parties on 23.09.2024. He further submitted that said Memorandum of Understanding can be regarded as an arbitral award and is binding on the parties. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Trial Court erred in refusing to grant ad-interim ex-parte injunction in spite of the fact that there is a prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants and it is the appellants who would suffer irreparable loss if such ad-interim ex-parte injunction is not granted. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the Trial Court also erred in taking into consideration the interest of the customers while refusing the grant of ad-interim ex-parte injunction inasmuch as the customers are not parties to this suit and the suit is not filed in a representative Page No.# 12/17 capacity. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in taking into consideration the interest of strangers to the suit while refusing to grant ad-interim ex-parte injunction. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order of refusal of the Trial Court to grant ad-interim ex-parte injunction as was prayed for by the appellants is liable to be set aside and the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 may be allowed to put their signatures in checks and debts documents by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Bank. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants has cited following rulings. (i)“Haresh D. Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.” reported in “(2000) 6 SCC 179” (ii) “S. Jegatheesan and Ors. Vs S. Vaikundarajan and Ors.” reported in “2019 7 MLI 323”, (iii) “Sanjit Singh Salwan and Ors. Vs. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan and Ors.”reported in “2025 Supreme (SC) 1209”, (iv) “Thulasidhara and Ors. Vs. Narayanappa and Ors.” reported in “(2019) 6 SCC 409” (v) “Kale Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors.” reported in “(1976) 3 SCC 119” (vi) “Pabitra Construction Vs. UCO Bank” reported in “AIR 2008 Cal 103” (vii) “Tilak Gogoi Vs. United Bank of India and Ors.” reported in “2019 Supreme (Gau) 116” (viii) “Rasheed P. Vs. Reserve Bank of India” reported in “2024 KER 91157” (ix) “Dalpat Kumar and Anr. Vs. Prahlad Singh and Ors.” reported in “(1992) 1 SCC 719”, Page No.# 13/17 (x) “Bindeshwar Narayan Singh and others Vs. Managing Committee, Shri Sundarmal Hindi High School and others” reported in “AIR 1982 GAU 69”, (xi) “Gadadhar Mishra Vs. Smt. Biraja Devi and Others” reported in “AIR 1999 Orissa 226”, (xii) “Bishambhar Dayal Vs. Moolchand” reported in “AIR 1964 Raj 179”, (xiii) “Narayanrao Marotirao Pimpalkar Vs. Waman Nathuji Wankhade and Anr.” reported in “AIR 1974 Bombay 319”, (xiv) “Jammu Forest Co. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir” reported in “AIR 1968 J&K 86”, (xv) “Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi reported in “2024 SC 1114”, (xvi) “Asma Lateef Vs. Shabbir Ahmad” reported in “2024 4 SCC 696”. 17. On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the respondent Bank has allowed the defendant No. 3 Manoj Kumar Jalan to operate the accounts of the entities of Protech Group on the strength of letter dated 18.05.2024 issued by the partners/Directors of the account holder entities. He further submits that the Bank has not violated any RBI guidelines in as much as, it is still in process of re-verifying of the KYC documents. He also submits that as all the partners are not willing to appear before the Bank at the same point of time, there has been a difficulty and delay in re-verification of KYC. However, he submits that Shri Manoj Kumar Jalanis allowed to operate the Bank accounts of various entities of the Protech Group, on the basis of due authorization by the partners/Directors of the entities holding the Bank account. Page No.# 14/17 18. Mr. B. D. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 has, on the other hand, submitted that all the deeds of partnership/ Articles of incorporation of various entities constituting the Protech Group contain arbitration clause. Accordingly, on 01.08.2025, respondent No. 3 had filed an application under 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Title Suit No. 266/2025 for referring the dispute to arbitration and the said application is still pending before the Trial Court. He further submits that the respondent No. 3 had also sent a request for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, however, when the appellants did not come forward, he approached the Court by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in respect of one of the entities of Protech Group, namely, M/S Pride Realty. He submits that the said proceeding has been registered as Misc. Arbitration Case No. 205/2024 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, wherein interim relief has been granted to the respondent No. 3. He submits that in the said arbitration case, the present appellants had also prayed for similar relief which they have sought in Misc.(J) Case No. 394/2025 arising out of Title Suit No. 266/2025 and the said application is still pending. He further submits that by doing so, the appellants have resorted to forum hunting. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 has further submitted that the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, by order dated 19.12.2024, passed in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 205/2024, have already injuncted the opposite party No. 1 of that case (the appellant No. 2 of this case) from taking any steps for freezing the accounts of the sister companies, subsidiaries or parent companies/firm of the Protech Group. Hence, he submits that till the aforesaid order is vacated, any Page No.# 15/17 contrary order result into passing conflicting orders by judicial authorities of co- ordinate capacities. He further submits that the Trial Court has not yet dismissed the application for grant of temporary mandatory injunction filed by the appellants, rather it has issued notice to the respondents and merely denied grant of ex-parte relief at that stage without giving opportunity to the other sides. He submits that the prayer for grant of temporary injunction of the appellants can very well now be decided by the Trial Court after hearing both sides. Hence, he submits that this appeal does not have any merit and prays for dismissal of the same. 20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 21. The dispute between the parties involves several partnership firms, private limited companies and limited liability partnerships comprising the Protech Group. It also appears that the relevant deeds/articles of association contain arbitration clauses therein for resolution of any dispute. It also appears from the materials on record that Misc. Arbitration Case No. 205/2024 is pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, wherein by order dated 19.12.2024, the Court has injuncted the appellant No. 2 from taking any steps for freezing the accounts of the sister companies, subsidiaries or parent companies/firm of the Protech Group. The said order is still in force. It appears that while declining to grant ex-parte injunction to the present appellants in Misc(J) Case No. 394/2025, the Trial Court took into consideration the above aspects. Since, it appears that the Protech Group is mainly into the business of real estate i.e., construction of flats, the Trial Court also took into consideration the welfare and the stakes of Page No.# 16/17 the customers who had booked flats with various entities of Protech Group. The Trial Court has categorically stated in the impugned order that since the interest of the customers and their hard earned money is at the foremost, every detail needs to be taken care of to find out in whose favour balance of convenience tilt, therefore, it issued notice to the opposite party and fixed a very short date in the said Misc.(J) Case No. 394/2024. 22. Under Order 39 proviso to Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court may grant a temporary injunction even without giving notice of the application to the opposite party only if it is satisfied that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay. Thus, only in cases where time is of essence and any delay caused in issuance of notice may defeat the purpose of grant of temporary injunction, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction may be justified. However, in the instant case the dispute is going on between the parties since the year 2024 and it was only on 10.12.2024, the appellant No. 2 wrote to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to conduct re-verification of KYC, to which the Bank authority replied on 13.12.2024 itself, whereas the appellants instituted the Title Suit No. 266/2025 only on 02.05.2025. 23. The appellants, apart from merely stating in Paragraph No. 100 of their application for temporary injunction that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay, have nowhere elaborated as to how by giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party for deciding the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by the appellants, the object of granting injunction would be defeated. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that the Trial Court did not err in declining to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction and issuing notice to the opposite parties. Page No.# 17/17 24. Now, as the opposite parties have already appeared before the Trial Court, it would be apt and would serve the ends of justice, if the application for temporary injunction is decided on merit by the Trial Court after hearing both the sides. 25. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is constrained to hold that this appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant