ORDER :

Mr Anant Ramanath HEGDE, J. - Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, for the petitioners and Sri Joshua Samuel, the learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in Misc. 658/2017 on the file of the Principal City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The petition is filed under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' for short). In the said petition, an application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code seeking restraint order against defendants No. 15 and 16. The Court after considering the materials placed before it passed an exparte order of injunction/status quo on 21.08.2017 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

3. The relevant portion of the order impugned reads as under:

"Hence, the defendants No. 15 and 16 are hereby directed to maintain the status-quo as not to indulge in any subversive acts in respect of the schedule entities and also as not to hold the processions, public gatherings, official meetings and as not to give any press statements or public statements till further orders".

4. Aggrieved by the said exparte order, defendants No. 15 and 16 are before this Court.

5. This Court vide order dated 12.12.2017 has stayed the operation of the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri Joshua Hudson Samuel would submit that on 19.05.2023, the conference is scheduled and defendants No. 15 and 16 are going to take a lead in the said conference and are likely to pass some orders which may affect the interest of the plaintiffs in the subject matter of the suit.

7. Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Conferences are being held since 4-5 years ever since this Court passed the interim order and there is no need to pass any prohibitory order restraining the petitioners from proceeding ahead with the conference scheduled on 19.05.2023.

8. Learned Senior counsel Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty would also submit that that the defendants have filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code on the premise that the Miscellaneous Petition itself is not maintainable and the same is not yet considered.

9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar. Perused the records. It is forth coming from the records that the exparte order of injunction is granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants No. 15 and 16. The application seeking temporary injunction is not yet considered on merits. It is the interim exparte order which is questioned before this Court.

10. It is forthcoming from the records that the application which is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Petition is required to be considered on merits and the same is not yet considered since last 6 years. The application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 regarding maintainability of the Misc. Petition is also pending consideration. Same is required to be considered on merits. This exercise has to be carried out by the trial Court where the petition/applications are pending.

11. Under the circumstances, this Court is or the view that the trial Court has to be directed to consider both the applications on merit and there need not be any order restraining the present petitioners from proceeding ahead with the Regional Conference which is scheduled on 19.05.2023. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent have agreed that any decision of the conference shall be subject to the result of the interim applications which are pending before the trial Court. Their submissions are placed on record.

12. Hence, the following:

Or