T. Madhavi Devi, J.

1. This Commercial Court Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the Court of the Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, (for short, “the trial Court”), in I.A No.320 of 2026 in C.O.S.No.260 of 2026, filed by respondent No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”).

2. Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned counsel representing Ms. Manasvi Reddy Jakka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, entered appearance by virtue of caveat.

3. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel representing Sri TPS Harsha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned counsel representing Ms. Manasvi Reddy Jakka, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

4. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

5. This Court finds that impugned order dated 04.05.2026 was passed without considering the mandate and purport of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC. The trial Court has not recorded as to why notice was not required to be served on the respondents/appellant herein, nor has it recorded what irreparable loss or injury would be caused to the applicant/respondent herein if an ex parte injunction order was not granted.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi ((1993) 3 SCC 161), wherein at Paragraph No.35, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

               “35. As such whenever a Court considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other side, it must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not passed. But any such ex parte order should be in force up to a particular date before which the plaintiff should be required to serve the notice on the defendant concerned. In the Supreme Court Practice 1993, Vol. 1, at page 514, reference has been made to the views of the English Courts saying:

               "Ex parte injunctions are for cases of real urgency where there has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion....

               An ex parte injunction should generally be until a certain day, usually the next motion day "

7. The aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court lay down the procedure required to be followed by the trial Court while passing an ex parte ad interim injunction order.

8. This Court finds that the impugned order has been passed without following the due procedure. Therefore, the order dated 04.05.2026 passed in I.A No.320 of 2026 in C.O.S.No.260 of 2026 by the trial Court is set aside, with a direction to the trial Court to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

9. It is stated that the matter is adjourned to 08.06.2026 before the trial Court. Since the learned counsel for respondent/appellant herein appeared before this Court, he is directed to appear before the trial Court on the said date and made his submissions by filing a counter affidavit in the I.A.

10. With the above observations and directions, this Commercial Court Appeal is disposed of. There shall no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.