Court's Attitude In Posting Matter To A Long Date Defeats Purpose Of Urgent Notice Under O.39 R.1 CPC: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that the purpose of issuing urgent notice under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, even if the court does not grant a temporary injunction, is to address situations requiring immediate action and in such cases the attitude of the Courts in posting the matter to a longer date defeats the purpose of the provision. 

Justice K. Manmadha Rao observed that such situations arise in cases of imminent danger, threats to safety, potential financial loss or risk of violation of legal rights and issuing urgent notice in such situations ensures that the legal system can respond and intervene strictly in situations which can cause irreparable harm. Such interference is crucial for “safeguarding rights of the individual who are facing immediate threats or potential harm and further enable legal system to respond to ensure the justice is served in a timely manner…”

The Court also held:

“The urgency of passing of orders under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC should be kept in mind. Even where the Court is not inclined to grant temporary injunction or decides to issue urgent notice in that case also the Court should issue urgent notice and post the matter to a shortest date. The Court should examine what is the reasonable time required to serve the notice upon the respondents. Where the plaintiff undertakes to serve the notice within two or three days, the matter need not be adjourned to a longer date. It can be posted within four days or a week.”

Background

The ruling came in a case where a Civil Revision Petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kovvur, West Godavari. Initially, the petitioners (plaintiff in the Original Suit) had filed for grant of permanent injunction against the respondents (defendants in the Original Suit) from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

This suit was filed before the trial Court along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC which prayed for grant of ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. While the petitioners had clearly stated in their affidavit that the respondent had wrongfully interfered with the peaceful possession of the plaint schedule properties by trying to dispossess the petitioner's men, the trial court which heard the application on January 28, ordered to “Issue urgent notice to respondent TC & RP on process. Call on 27.02.2025”. 

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners approached the High Court in a civil revision plea claiming that the trial court should have considered the urgency of the matter owing to the looming threat of dispossession of the petitioners from the suit schedule property.

Findings

Highlighting the legislative intent behind Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC, the Court noted,

“The above referred provision enables the Court to grant temporary injunction even without issuing notice to the respondents. The above provision has been made with an intention to preserve the property as it is. When any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may grant a temporary injunction. Of course, the plaintiffs have to establish prima facie case. It becomes the duty of the Courts to examine whether there is any urgency in the matter or not. The Courts should go through the averments made by the party in the supporting affidavit and also the pleadings and documents filed in support of the case of the plaintiffs. When a prima facie case is made out, the Courts must grant temporary injunction and see that the plaintiff is not dispossessed in the meanwhile.”

The Court observed that the trial Court had issued urgent notice and on appearance of the respondent, the matter had been adjourned to a longer date which was not proper and defeated the purpose of urgent notice.

The Court observed that there was no need to issue notice to the respondents in the civil revision and disposed of the same at admission stage. The Court, however, directed the trial court to issue notice to the respondent/defendant or their counsel and advance the matter to any date within a period of seven days from the date of the receipt of the high court order. It further directed the trial court to hear the matter within seven days and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both parties.

Case Name: Vaitla Rama Murthy and Others v. Marisetty Satyanarayana

Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 755/2025

Click Here To Read/Dow nload Order