Even if, prima facie, the three factors are made out, even then the Court would be justified in not granting an ex-parte order, and in directing that first the notice should be served on the opposite party. A divisional bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma in the matter of Dapinder Singh Marwah Vs. M/s Shaviya Packaging Solutions and others (APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 143 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order passed by the Additional District Judge Whereby the Judge has declined to pass an ex-parte interim order in favor of the plaintiff.
In the present case, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the Additional District Judge was duty bound to pass an ex- parte interim order in favor of the plaintiff as to all the three factors, for grant of an ex-parte interim order, were present in the present case, namely the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
The court observed that – “It is, indeed, trite to state that to grant, or not to grant an ex-parte order is totally within the discretion of the Court…. It is only after hearing the defendants that the Trial Court would be justified in passing an interim order, or in rejecting the same.” The court also stated that the court cannot grant an ex-parte interim order for the simple reason that the defendants have already put in an appearance before the learned Trial Court. The court did not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and thereby dismissed the appeal.
