Sunita Gupta vs Mamta Singhania & Others

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J

The captioned writ petition is filed by defendant No.2 questioning the order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru on I.A.No.II filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.334/2022 as per Annexure-A.

Heard Smt.Lakshmy Iyengar, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner/defendant No.2 and Sri. Ganapati.N.Hegde, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff. Perused the order under challenge.

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the learned Trial Judge, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the application in I.A.No.II filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, has granted injunction by exercising inherent jurisdiction conferred under Section 151 of CPC.

Learned Senior counsel would submit to this Court that there is an error in procedure and by granting status-quo order, the learned Trial Judge has virtually denied a fair opportunity to the present petitioner herein to contest the application filed in I.A.No.II.

I have examined the order under challenge. On perusal of the same, this Court would find that the matter was in-fact listed before the in-charge Court and respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff pleaded urgency in the matter and got the matter preponed. On the preponed date, though petitioner/defendant No.2 sought time to file objection application, learned Trial Judge has declined the said prayer and has granted an order of injunction in the nature of status-quo. Therefore, I do find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Grant of interim injunction is an equitable relief. The Court has to look into the prima-facie materials of both the parties and thereafter proceed to grant interim injunction. The Court while granting or refusing interim injunction has to assign cogent reasons. However, in the present case on hand, the learned Trial Judge has virtually adopted a shortcut method in exercising power under Section 151 of CPC and has proceeded to grant status-quo order. Therefore, I am of the view that having granted status-quo order, the learned Trial Judge cannot further postpone the hearing I.A.No.II. Since petitioner/defendant No.2 is pressing for hearing on I.A.No.II, petitioner shall serve a copy of written statement and objections by tomorrow and if objections and written statement are tendered by petitioner/defendant No.2 on 15.07.2022, the learned Trial Judge shall hear both the parties and shall pass appropriate orders and decide I.A.No.II in accordance with law.

With these observations, I pass the following;

ORDER

The writ petition stands disposed of.