Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Case No.248/2026, whereby the trial court declined to grant ad interim injunction in favour of the appellant, M/s Shyam And Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited, in a dispute against Gnet Impex Private Limited and its director Sandeep Patawari. The appellant challenged the refusal of interim protection before the Rajasthan High Court by way of a civil miscellaneous appeal under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The substantive application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX CPC was still pending before the trial court when the appeal was heard. The High Court noted that any detailed discussion on merits at the interlocutory stage could inadvertently influence the trial court or prejudice either party. It therefore refrained from examining the factual and legal controversy, observing that the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury were yet to be comprehensively considered by the court of first instance. The respondent's counsel argued that the available material demonstrated absence of a prima facie case, justifying the trial court's refusal, but the High Court declined to express any opinion on that submission for the same reason. The court emphasized the distinction between an ad interim injunction, which is short-lived and meant for exceptional circumstances, and a temporary injunction, which operates for the pendency of the suit. It observed that once pleadings were completed and affidavits filed, the trial court should ordinarily decide the temporary injunction application itself rather than spending judicial time on the ad interim prayer. It further directed that temporary injunction applications should preferably be decided within about thirty days from the date they become ripe for consideration. In light of these principles, the High Court disposed of the appeal without expressing any opinion on merits, directing the trial court to decide the pending temporary injunction application positively on or before 20.07.2026 after independently evaluating the pleadings, affidavits, and material on record and after lawful assessment of the three ingredients—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury—uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned order or the present order. Until 20.07.2026, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property and no third-party interest was to be created. The application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to adduce additional evidence was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application before the trial court in accordance with law. The High Court expressed no opinion on the merits and made no finding on the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury, leaving those questions entirely for the trial court's independent determination.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Injunctions - Ad Interim vs Temporary Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX - The court emphasized that an ad interim injunction is intended to grant immediate and short-lived protection in exceptional circumstances, whereas temporary injunction operates during pendency of suit and is the substantive remedy. Once notices are served and pleadings complete, the court should ordinarily decide the temporary injunction application itself rather than dwell elaborately on the ad interim prayer (Paras 7, 7.1). B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Expeditious Disposal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX - Temporary injunction applications should be decided with utmost expedition, preferably within about thirty days from the date they become ripe for consideration. The High Court directed the trial court to decide the pending application by 20.07.2026 after independently evaluating pleadings, affidavits and material, and assessing prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury (Paras 4, 7.1, 8). C) Civil Procedure - Appellate Review - Restraint on Merits at Interlocutory Stage - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Judicial discipline demands that the appellate court refrain from detailed examination of factual and legal controversy at the ad interim stage to avoid influencing the trial court or prejudicing either party. The appellate court consciously desisted from recording any opinion on merits and left the determination to the court of first instance (Paras 3, 5, 6). D) Civil Procedure - Status Quo Order - Interim Protection - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX - Pending the trial court's decision on temporary injunction, the High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property and prohibited creation of any third-party interest until 20.07.2026 (Para 9). E) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 27 - The application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application before the trial court in accordance with law (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court should interfere with an order refusing ad interim injunction when the substantive temporary injunction application is still pending; whether the trial court should be directed to decide the temporary injunction application expeditiously; and what interim protection should operate pending such decision.
Final Decision
The appeal was disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits. The trial court was directed to decide the pending temporary injunction application positively on or before 20.07.2026 after independently evaluating the pleadings, affidavits, and material on record and assessing prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Until 20.07.2026, parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property and no third-party interest was to be created. The application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application before the trial court.
Law Points
- Ad interim injunction is distinct from temporary injunction and should not substitute final adjudication
- appellate court should not express opinion on merits at interlocutory stage
- trial court must independently assess prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- and irreparable injury under Order XXXIX CPC
- temporary injunction applications should be decided expeditiously
- preferably within thirty days
- status quo order appropriate to protect suit property pending decision
