Case Note & Summary
The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the original defendants Nos. 3 to 7 seeking a direction for early hearing and disposal of an interim injunction application (Exh. 5) in Special Civil Suit No. 218 of 2023 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat. The suit had been instituted by the plaintiffs for specific performance of a contract and permanent injunction, and along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was filed praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling or transferring the suit property. Despite an order dated 22.09.2025 by the trial court directing the plaintiffs to proceed with the hearing of the injunction application, the matter was repeatedly adjourned, and the application had not been finally heard since 2023. The petitioners, being transferees with interest in the suit land, contended that the delay in hearing the interim application was causing prejudice, and the very purpose of the interim relief was being defeated. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the defendants had been repeatedly seeking early hearing, but the plaintiffs’ advocate was not cooperating. The respondents did not appear. The High Court, after considering the submissions, observed that the object of an interim injunction application is frustrated if it is not heard and disposed of in a timely manner as contemplated under the CPC. The Court found that a delay of over two years in deciding the interim application was unjustified. Accordingly, the Court directed the trial court to complete the hearing of Exh. 5 within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Both parties were ordered to extend full cooperation and to refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Court further directed that if any advocate of either party does not cooperate, the trial court shall hear the other party and decide the application on merits in accordance with law. The High Court clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the case, leaving all contentions open for final adjudication. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Expeditious Hearing - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - In a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed in 2023, the interim injunction application remained unheard for two years despite court order. The High Court observed that delay frustrates the purpose of interim relief and directed the trial court to complete hearing within three months, with parties to cooperate; if any advocate obstructs, the court may proceed ex parte and decide on merits. Held, expeditious hearing is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a direction should be issued for expeditious hearing of the interim injunction application pending in the trial court?
Final Decision
Petition disposed of with direction to trial court to complete hearing of Exh.5 application within three months; parties directed to cooperate and not seek unnecessary adjournments; if any advocate does not cooperate, trial court may hear other party and decide on merits; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- interim injunction applications must be heard expeditiously
- delay frustrates purpose
- parties must cooperate
- court may proceed ex parte if necessary
