The Andhra Pradesh High Court has emphasized that delaying the hearing of matters where urgent notice is issued under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) defeats the very purpose of the provision. The court highlighted that such urgent notices are issued to address imminent threats, safeguard legal rights, and ensure timely judicial intervention.
Justice K. Manmadha Rao observed that in cases involving serious risks such as threats to safety, financial losses, or potential violations of legal rights, courts must act swiftly. He stressed:
“The urgency of passing orders under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC should be kept in mind. Even where the court does not grant a temporary injunction, it must ensure that urgent notice is issued and the matter is posted for a short date.”
Read Also:- Karnataka HC Rules That Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Decide Third-Party Rights in Arbitration Matters
Case Background
The ruling came in response to a Civil Revision Petition filed against an order issued by the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kovvur, West Godavari. The petitioners, plaintiffs in the original suit, had sought a permanent injunction against the respondents to prevent interference with their peaceful possession of the disputed property.
The suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC, seeking an ad-interim injunction until the case's final resolution. The petitioners had alleged that the respondents attempted to wrongfully dispossess them. However, despite recognizing the urgency, the trial court issued an urgent notice but scheduled the matter for nearly a month later—on February 27, 2025. This delay prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, analyzing the legal provisions, ruled:
“Order 39 Rule 1 CPC allows courts to grant temporary injunctions even without issuing notice to the respondents. The provision aims to preserve the disputed property and prevent wrongful acts like dispossession or alienation.”
Read Also:- Legal Awareness and Right to Respond to Police Inquiry Not Anti-National: Bombay High Court
Justice Manmadha Rao noted that when a prima facie case exists, courts must take immediate steps to prevent irreparable harm. The court also underscored that unnecessary delays in scheduling hearings contradict the intent of urgent notices.
“When there is urgency, the courts must not post the matter to a later date unnecessarily. If the plaintiff undertakes to serve notice within a few days, the matter should be scheduled within four days or a week.”
The court referred to the precedent set in Smt. K. Vijaya Lakshmi v. G. Nageshwara Reddy & Others, where the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held:
“Order 39 Rule 1 CPC enables the court to grant a temporary injunction without issuing notice to the opposite party. Courts must assess urgency and not adjourn matters unnecessarily.”
The High Court ruled that the trial court’s decision to delay the hearing of the matter for nearly a month was improper. It observed that the failure to promptly address urgent matters undermines the legal system's effectiveness in protecting rights.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Directs Preservation of CCTV Footage in Alleged Fake NDPS Case
In response, the High Court directed the trial court to:
- Issue notice to the respondent/defendant or their counsel immediately.
- Advance the hearing date within seven days from receiving the High Court’s order.
- Decide the matter within seven days, ensuring a fair opportunity for both parties to present their arguments.
The Civil Revision Petition was accordingly disposed of, with the court instructing the lower court to act swiftly in accordance with the law.
Case Name: Vaitla Rama Murthy and Others v. Marisetty Satyanarayana
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 755/2025
