⚖️ 1. Legal Basis: Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC
Under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 CPC, any party aggrieved by an ex parte injunction may apply to the same court to have it discharged, varied, or set aside if:
- The original application or supporting affidavit contained false or misleading statements of material fact, and the injunction was granted without notice to the opposite party; or
- There is a material change of circumstance, or the injunction has caused undue hardship to the defendant .
📝 2. Grounds to Vacate Ex Parte Order
False/misleading statements in the plaintiff’s pleadings or affidavit or concealment of material facts.
Procedural non‑compliance, especially where no notice was issued before grant of injunction under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX .
Excessive hardship or changed circumstances justifying relief to the defendant even if the order was made with notice .
Lack of jurisdiction by the granting court—if applicable, can be a valid ground .
⚙️ 3. How to Proceed Step by Step
- Enter appearance in the suit and file your written statement promptly.
- File an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC (~“vacating application”) before the same trial court which granted the ex parte injunction.
- Clearly plead and support with evidence:
Misstatements or omissions in the initial injunction application.
Changes in factual circumstances.
Undue hardship suffered due to the order.
Any procedural irregularities (e.g., no notice).
- Request the court to list the matter on priority, emphasizing that the order was granted ex parte.
- If the trial court delays or refuses to vacate the order:
You may appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC where the order is appealable (e.g. an order under Rule 1, 2, 4 etc.) .
Or file a High Court revision/application under writ jurisdiction, pointing out non‑disposal or procedural lapses. According to A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (AIR 2000 SC 3032), if a court fails to decide Rule 4 application within 30 days, the injunction order is deemed final and becomes appealable .
📚 4. Landmark Precedents & Key Judgments
Case Key Legal Principle
A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (AIR 2000 SC 3032) Failure to dispose Rule 4 application within 30 days makes order final and appealable .
Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011, SC) Provided guidelines on ex parte injunctions and emphasized expeditious vacation via Rule 4 application .
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1991) Three‑fold test for injunction: prima facie case + balance of convenience + irreparable injury .
Persuasive recent commentary (Raizada Law Associates, July 7, 2025) re-affirms same principles and practical guidelines on vacation, variation, appeal of interim injunctions under CPC Order XXXIX . ✅ 5. Suggested Draft Outline for Your Petition
- Title: IA under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC — to vacate ex parte injunction.
- Facts: Suit No., court, status—lack of notice, incomplete/inaccurate pleading.
- Issues:
Material misstatement or suppression in initial application.
Material change in circumstances or hardship.
Delay in disposal of Rule 4 application.
- Reliefs Sought:
Vacate injunction.
Or at least modify/dismiss it.
Grant interim stay on injunction until decision.
- Prayer also for early listing and a finding on vexatious conduct (if applicable).
🧭 Final Notes
Immediately enter appearance and stage your Rule 4 application, with detailed affidavit and documentary proof.
Cite A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu for default disposal consequences and Ramrameshwari Devi for guidelines on ex parte. Also rely on Dalpat Kumar for test of relief.
If the lower court delays or resists, escalate via appeal under Order XLIII or High Court revisions/writ petitions, emphasising statutory timelines and lack of notice or equity.⚖️