Interim Restraint Without Deciding Injunction Plea Cannot Continue: Karnataka High Court Steps In Under Article 227

“Applications Under Order XXXIX Cannot Be Kept Pending While Rights Stand Frozen”, Karnataka High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct a procedural irregularity committed by the Trial Court. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Trial Court to decide pending applications for temporary injunction within one month, without being influenced by the impugned interim order.

The High Court held that when applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC are pending, the Trial Court cannot indefinitely continue an interim restraint affecting valuable property rights without adjudicating those applications on merits.

Interim Restraint Without Disposal of Injunction Applications

The petitioners, who were defendant Nos.30, 31 and 32 in O.S. No.1343/2023 pending before the VI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, approached the High Court challenging an order dated 31.01.2026.

The grievance was straightforward yet significant. The plaintiffs had filed I.A. Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction. The petitioners had already filed their written statement and detailed objections to the injunction applications. However, instead of deciding the applications on merits, the Trial Court directed the petitioners “not to alienate the suit property until further orders.”

Contending that such an order effectively granted interim relief without adjudication, the petitioners invoked Article 227 seeking supervisory correction.

Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227: Correcting Procedural Irregularity

After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and perusing the material on record, the High Court noted that the injunction applications were still pending consideration and had not been disposed of.

The Court refrained from examining the merits of the rival claims but found it appropriate to intervene to ensure procedural propriety. Justice Krishna Kumar observed that since the applications under Order XXXIX were yet to be adjudicated, the proper course was to direct the Trial Court to decide them expeditiously after hearing both sides.

The High Court emphasized that interim directions affecting substantive rights cannot continue indefinitely without a reasoned adjudication on the pending injunction applications.

Time-Bound Direction: One Month for Decision

Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear direction that the Trial Court shall consider and pass appropriate orders on I.A. Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 on merits within one month from the next date of hearing, which stood posted on 28.02.2026.

Importantly, the Court directed that the Trial Court shall decide the applications “without being influenced by the findings or observations recorded in the impugned order or in the present order.”

All rival contentions were expressly kept open.

Given the limited nature of directions issued, notice to the respondents was dispensed with.

This order underscores a crucial procedural principle in civil litigation: applications for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC must be decided on merits after hearing both parties. Courts cannot allow such applications to remain pending while continuing interim restraints that materially affect property rights.

By invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the Karnataka High Court ensured that procedural discipline is maintained and that interim measures do not substitute for adjudication.

Date of Decision: 26/02/2026