C/AO/78/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 78 of 2025 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 78 of 2025 ========================================================== HUSENALI ANWARALI CHARANIYA Versus DAXESHKUMAR KANUBHAI PATEL ========================================================== Appearance: MR SUNIL S JOSHI(2925) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS JAHNVI N KAPADIA(10987) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Date : 06/05/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Admit. Learned advocates Mr. Rushvi N. Shah waives service of notice for respondent-caveator. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, appeal itself is taken for hearing. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their original position before the trial court. 3. The appellant herein is the original defendant and respondent is plaintiff. The defendant is feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 4th April, 2025 passed by 3rd C/AO/78/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 Additional District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur Ahmedabad below Exhibit 5 in Trade Mark Suit No.16 of 2025, has preferred the present appeal from order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”). 4. Learned counsel Mr. R. H. Bhansali would submit that an ex parte ad interim injunction has been granted by the trial court on 4th April, 2025 and next date of hearing of the said injunction application was fixed on 12th June, 2025 which is in contravention to the statutory provisions of CPC, i.e. Order 39 Rule 3A of CPC. 4.1 Learned counsel Mr. Bhansali would further submit that as such defendant has good case on its merit and without assigning cogent and sufficient reasons and so also not arriving at a subjective satisfaction to requires to pass such an ex parte ad-interim injunction, the impugned order has been passed which violates the right of defendant to carry on its business. 4.2 Learned counsel Mr. Bhansali would submit that this C/AO/78/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 Court may either interfere with the order passed by the trial court and/or may advance the date of hearing of injunction application in consonance with provisions of law, i.e., Order 39 Rule 3A of CPC, whereby the trial court may be directed to decide the injunction application within a stipulated time and/or at least ad interim injunction application, which has been so granted, can be modified or vacated. 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr. Harsit S. Tolia would submit that as such the trial court has not committed any error of law by granting ad-interim ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff and as such sufficient reasons are assigned by the trial court. He would submit that defendant well within its right to approach trial court for early hearing of injunction application which it has not done but approaches to this Court by way of appeal which is inappropriate as by now more than month passed from date of order impugned in the appeal. So, it may not be interfered with. 5.1 Nonetheless, learned senior counsel Mr.Tolia candidly C/AO/78/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 submits that so far as fixing the date of further hearing of injunction application is concerned, the trial court ought to have followed the procedure so prescribed under Order 39 Rule 3A of CPC, and to that extent, under the instruction of his client, he does not have any objection if the hearing of the injunction application is advanced by this Court. 6. In Rejoinder, learned advocate Mr. Bhansali under the instruction of client is also ready to go before trial court if date of hearing of injunction application would be advanced by this Court. 7. Heard Learned advocate Mr.R.H.Bhansali with learned advocate Mr.Sunil S. Joshi and learned senior counsel Mr.Harshit S. Tolia with learned advocates Mr. Rushvi N. Shah, Zahid K. Shaikh, Riya Dani and Jahnvi Kapadia for the respondent. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and after going through the order impugned in the appeal, it appears that the trial court C/AO/78/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 has passed an ex-parte order dated 4th of April 2025, thereby, granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, but the next date of hearing of such injunction application was fixed on 12th June, 2025. Such an approach on the part of trial court is not in consonance with the mandatory provision of Order 39 Rule 3A of CPC. 9. For sake of convenience and to better understand the nicety of procedural law, and the same may be considered and remembered by everyone, I would like to reproduce it herein below:- “ORDER XXXIX TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS 3A. Court to dispose of application for injunction within thirty days.—Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted; and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability.” It is clear, unambiguous, and mandatory provision of CPC that every trial court, who is granting the prayer of plaintiff whereby, grant an ex-parte interim injunction is supposed to hear and decide such injunction application within 30 days C/AO/78/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 from date of its order and in a case it would not do so is supposed to record its reasons. In the present case, as the date fixed by the trial court for further hearing of injunction application is beyond such statutory period, to that extent, order impugned passed by the trial court requires interference, which is hereby interfered with. 10. Nonetheless, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such, already more than one month has been passed from the date of passing of the order impugned in the present appeal, it would not appropriate for this court to go into the merits of the matter and as such, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties are ad idem that date of hearing of the injunction application may be advanced by this Court thereby, trial court may be directed to decide the injunction application at earliest. 11. In view of the above, following order is passed. (I) The date of hearing of injunction application is hereby advanced thereby, parties to suit will have to appear before C/AO/78/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 trial court on 12th May, 2025. (II) As the defendant is agreed to file reply, the defendant is hereby directed to file its reply to the injunction application on or before 12th May 2025 with documentary evidence if any. Rejoinder, if any, by the plaintiff to be filed on or before 19th May 2025 with documentary evidence if any. Both sides serve their respective reply/rejoinder with all documents on which they relied upon in advance to other side before its filing. (III) Once, the pleading of injunction application gets over, the trial court is required to hear the injunction application peremptorily by giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. (IV) Once, the hearing will be concluded by the trial court on injunction application filed below Exhibit 5, the trial court shall decide and adjudicate such injunction application by passing a speaking reasoned order on or before 13th June, 2025 as the court is approaching towards summer break. 12. It is made clear that this court has neither gone into nor C/AO/78/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/05/2025 examined the merits of the matter except needs its observation to interfere with advancement of date of hearing of injunction application. 13. The trial court is required to decide the ad-interim injunction application without being influenced by any of its observations made in the order impugned and/or passed by this court in this order. 14. Accordingly, the present Appeal from Order is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost. As a sequel, the civil application is disposed of accordingly. (MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) MOHD MONIS Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MOHD MONIS(HC01900), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 08/05/2025 12:05:48