According to Order 39 Rule 3(a) of CPC, 1908[1], which predominantly states that the plaintiff in whose favour the interim injunction was granted, is required to deliver following documents within the day of the Injunction was granted or the day immediately following the same, to the respondent:

1. A copy of Affidavit in support of Application
2. A copy of Plaint
3. Copies of documents on which applicant relies

• Agi Logistics Inc & Anr. (Plaintiff) vs Sher Jang Bahadur & Anr. (Respondent) on 16 September, 2009 – DELHI HIGH COURT
• In this case, plaintiff was failed to comply with the requisitions of the order 39 rule 3 which says that applicant needs to deliver all the required document within the prescribed period of time.
• Court was of the opinion that:
  • If the Court were to take a lenient view and not insist on strict compliance with the mandatory requirement of Order 39 Rule 3, then it would be possible for most Plaintiffs to continue to enjoy an ad interim ex-parte stay in their favour for any length of time and plead genuine mistake by their counsel for non-compliance.

Court also mentioned that in the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti Chavare and Ors on 4 March, 1975[3], the principle was supported where the court said: "Jassel M. R. adopted the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden".[4], to which court relied.

• M/S Ashwani Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Krishna Traders on 2 March, 2012 – Delhi High Court: In this case, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Order 39 Rule 3, which stated that the applicant needed to serve the required documents or paper book to the defendant within the prescribed period.
  • To which Court was of the opinion that:
  • Since the plaintiff had not sent a complete set of paper book and documents, based on the available record, the Court viewed that the order passed on 06.02.2012 was liable to be suspended.
     
• Tecnimont Icb Pvt. Ltd. vs Afcons Infrastructure Ltd on 30 August, 2013 – Gujarat High Court: In this case, the Appellant (initially the respondent) appealed to the High Court after the Trial Court had granted an ad-interim injunction ex-parte.
  • They contended that the injunction granted was not compliant with Order 39 Rule 3. The High Court vacated the order, stating: "The Court has committed serious error in granting ex parte ad-interim injunction in disregard of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
     
• Hari Chand v. Panchayat Mohalla Soodan (2018) – Punjab Haryana High Court: In this case, the revision petition was filed to vacate the ad-interim order. The concerned court vacated the impugned order, making it clear to the plaintiff that due to non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3, the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the revision petition was allowed.
   
• A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan & Ors. On 19 September, 2000 – Supreme Court Of India: In this case, the apex court stated that if the court which passed the interim order ex-parte did not record reasons or require the applicant to perform certain duties needed for compliance with Order 39 Rule 3, such non-compliance on the applicant's part cannot be allowed to go without consequence.

End-Notes:

1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908
2. CS(OS) 1314/2009
3. 1975 SCC (1) 559
4. Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch.D. 426
5. CS (OS) No.284/2012
6. C/FA/2191/2013
7. CS-2633 OF 2007
8. 7 SCC 695