Authority: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack

Order Date: 25.06.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Cuttack Club (registered under Section‑8 Companies Act, Cuttack) and its elected Secretary (Petitioner No.2).
  • Opposite Party (Plaintiff): Individual member of the Club who filed a suit (C.S. No.219 of 2026) on 29.04.2026 seeking declaration that a suspension letter dated 02.02.2026 was null, void, illegal and arbitrary, and that the disciplinary proceeding against him be set aside.
  • The trial court (First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Cuttack) issued an ex‑parte interim injunction on 01.05.2026 under its inherent power Section 151 CPC, restraining the Club from proceeding with any disciplinary action and directing no coercive action against the Plaintiff.
  • The injunction application was filed under Order‑XXXIX Rule‑1 & 2 of the CPC; summons were served on the Club but the Club did not appear on the scheduled date, leading the trial court to set them ex‑parte.
  • The Club filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No.841 of 2026) under Article 227, challenging the legality of the 01.05.2026 order, arguing that:
  • The trial court mis‑used Section 151 CPC when specific provisions (Order‑XXXIX) exist.
  • The matter falls within the jurisdiction of the NCLT under the Companies Act, invoking Section 430.
  • No urgency justified the ex‑parte injunction.
  • The injunction was granted without a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or proof of irreparable injury.
  • The Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the Club had appeared on 18.05.2026, filed an application under Order‑IX Rule‑7 with Section 151 CPC to set aside the ex‑parte order, and that the trial court subsequently scheduled the matter for hearing on 22.06.2026.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that while the trial court should have relied on Order‑XXXIX Rule‑1 & 2 rather than Section 151 CPC, the use of Section 151 was not illegal because the procedural requirements of Rule‑3 (service of summons) had been complied with and the ex‑parte injunction was permissible to protect the subject matter.
  • The Court declined to interfere with the injunction order, stating it was a discretionary interim order within the trial court’s powers under Section 94 CPC read with Order‑XXXIX.
  • The Court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the pending interlocutory application (Order‑XXXIX Rule‑1 & 2) and to dispose of it within six weeks from the communication of this judgment.
  • The CMP was dismissed in its entirety.

Topics: Injunction, Civil Procedure, Company Law