The court established that maintaining the status-quo is essential in injunction cases to prevent irreparable harm while ensuring compliance with prior judgments.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.5298/2021 before the VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, challenging the order dtd. 24/3/2023 passed on I.A.No.4 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC, whereby the Trial Court has allowed I.A.No.4 filed by the defendant and vacated the interim order granted in favour of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit before the Trial Court for bare injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction. At the first instance, the Trial Court granted an exparte interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property. On service of suit summons, defendant appeared through counsel and filed written statement and also filed I.A.No.4 under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court by impugned order dtd. 24/3/2023 allowed I.A.No.4 filed by the defendant and vacated the exparte interim order. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-defendant has contended that the defendant had earlier filed O.S.No.8198/2003 and the same came to be decreed and against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff 's husband had filed RFA No.838/2007 before this Court and the said appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8198/2003. The plaintiff has not complied with the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8198/2003. Therefore, the defendant had to file execution petition to execute the said judgment and decree. Considering this aspect of the matter, the Trial Court has rightly allowed I.A.No.4 filed by the defendant and vacated the interim order granted in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the impugned order.

6. Be that as it may. The suit is now set down for framing issues. Under the circumstances and in the interest of justice, the only direction that can be issued at this stage is to direct the parties to maintain statusquo in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit and to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

7. Hence, the following order is passed:

ORDER

a) The appeal is disposed of.

b) The impugned order dtd. 24/3/2023 passed by the VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on I.A.No.4 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC in O.S.No.5298/2021 is modified.

c) Parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

d) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible not later than eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

e) Parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the suit.

f) It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the executing court to continue with the proceedings in accordance with law, if the defendant files execution petition, if any, to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.8198/2003.

In view of disposal of the appeal, all pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and hence, they are dismissed accordingly.