Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gajanan Gyanuji Zambhare, filed two writ petitions challenging orders dated 31.01.2015 passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 2014 and Regular Civil Suit No. 205 of 2014. The trial court had vacated the status quo that was earlier granted on the applications for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The High Court observed that it was not understood how the trial court failed to decide the injunction application on merits after granting status quo. The court held that the order vacating status quo without deciding the application on merits was unsustainable. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the applications for temporary injunction were dismissed. The trial court was directed to decide the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on their own merits within one month from the date of first appearance of the parties, with the parties to appear on 17th February 2015. Any adjournment sought would be subject to a cost of Rs. 5000. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Duty of Trial Court - The trial court, after granting status quo on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, must decide the application for injunction on merits instead of vacating the status quo. The order impugned vacating status quo without deciding the application on merits cannot be sustained. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could vacate the status quo granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC without deciding the application for temporary injunction on merits.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 31.01.2015 passed below Exh.20 by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 2014 (impugned in W.P. No. 721 of 2015) and the order dated 31.01.2015 passed below Exh.17 by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 205 of 2014 (impugned in W.P. No. 722 of 2015) are quashed and set aside. The applications at Exh.20 and Exh.17 are dismissed. The trial Court is directed to decide the applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. on its own merits within a period of one month from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 17th February, 2015. If any of the parties seek an adjournment, it shall be subject to cost of Rs.5000. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order as to cost.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Status quo
- Duty of trial court to decide injunction application on merits
- Vacation of status quo without deciding merits is unsustainable
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 166
Writ Petition No. 721/2015 and Writ Petition No. 722/2015
Shri S.D.Chande for Petitioner; Shri S.R.Deshpande for Respondent No.1; Shri Neeraj Patil, AGP for Respondent No.2 in WP No.721/2015 and for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in WP No.722/2015; None for Respondent No.4 in WP No.722/2015
Gram Panchayat, Kondala Zamare; The Collector, Washim; Bhavanti Devi Idol (Juristic Person) [Deleted]; Tahsildar, Washim; Khandu Motiram Gawande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petitions challenging orders of the trial court vacating status quo granted on applications for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the trial court orders dated 31.01.2015 that vacated the status quo and sought direction to decide the injunction applications on merits.
Filing Reason
The trial court vacated the status quo without deciding the application for temporary injunction on merits.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had granted status quo on the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, but later vacated the status quo by orders dated 31.01.2015 without deciding the applications on merits.
Issues
Whether the trial court could vacate the status quo granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC without deciding the application for temporary injunction on merits.
Submissions/Arguments
Not mentioned in the judgment text.
Ratio Decidendi
After granting status quo on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, it is necessary for the trial court to decide the application for injunction on merits instead of vacating the status quo. An order vacating status quo without deciding the application on merits cannot be sustained.
Judgment Excerpts
It is not understood as to how the trial Court has not decided the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code.
After the status quo was granted on the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., it was necessary for the trial Court to have decided the application for injunction on merits, instead of vacating the status quo.
The order impugned cannot, therefore, be sustained.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 2014 and Regular Civil Suit No. 205 of 2014. The trial court granted status quo on the applications for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Subsequently, the trial court passed orders dated 31.01.2015 vacating the status quo without deciding the applications on merits. The petitioner challenged these orders by filing Writ Petition No. 721/2015 and Writ Petition No. 722/2015 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
