Sc order

in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD (1993), wherein it was observed that the requirement for recording the reasons for the grant of an ex parte injunction cannot be held to be a mere formality. The party which invokes the jurisdiction of the court for the grant of an order of restraint against a party, without allowing him to be heard, must satisfy the court about the gravity of the situation, and the court has to consider briefly these factors in the ex parte order.

The Bench thus observed that if the court is satisfied of noncompliance by the applicant with the provisions contained in the proviso then it can simply vacate the ex parte order of injunction, leaving it open to the parties to have a hearing on the grant or otherwise on the order of injunction, but bipartite only.

However, considering the fact that the Trial Court was to hear both parties insofar as the prayer of the plaintiff for the grant of an appropriate injunction was concerned, the Bench refused to interfere with the impugned order. “The Trial Court shall hear the plaintiff and defendants and decide the injunction application filed by the plaintiff on its own merits in accordance with law, without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the High Court in its impugned order”, it ordered.