Court must independently adjudicate temporary injunction applications, ensuring fair trial rights are upheld as per procedural laws.

ORDER :

Jyoti Mulimani, J.

Sri.Sachin M.Mahajan., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ravi B.Patil., counsel for respondents 1 to 7 and 26 to 28 have appeared in person.

2. The order dated 06.04.2024 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura on I.A.No.6 and I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.120/2021 vide Annexure-H is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

4. Suffice it to note that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. After the service of the summons, defendants 1 to 7 filed a written statement. It is noted that defendants 31 to 33 came on record on an impleading application. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to move an application in I.A.No.5 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction to restrain defendants 31 to 33 from alienating and changing the nature of the suit lands bearing Sy.No.471*9 measuring 05 Acres 14 Guntas (3 Guntas pot kharab) and Sy.No.473/* 1A measuring 01 Acre 25 Guntas situated at Mahalbagayat, Vijayapura. The same was opposed by defendants 31 to 33. The plaintiff also filed an application in I.A.No.6 under Section 151 of CPC to file a replication to the defendants’ plea. The Trial Court vide order dated 06.04.2024 rejected I.A.No.6 and ordered that I.A.No.5 will be heard and taken up along with the main suit. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

Counsel Sri.Ravi B.Patil., in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the Trial Court had passed the status quo order on I.A.No.3 on 12.08.2021. Hence, the Trial Court is justified in making an order that I.A.No.5 will be considered along with the main suit. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

1) GLEN FREDRIC PICARDO VS. RODNEY PICARDO AND OTHERS – AIR 2011 KAR 13.

2) SMT.SHYLAJA VS. SMT.MALLAJAMMANNI AND OTHERS – W.P.NO.5688/2022 DISPOSED OF ON 25.03.2022.

Counsel Sri.Ravi B.Patil., submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the copy of the order sheet of the Trial Court and the same may be placed on record and an appropriate order may be passed.

Memo furnishing the copy of the order sheet of the Trial Court is placed on record.

5. A perusal of the order sheet of the Trial Court reflects that status quo order was passed on 12.08.2021. It is pivotal to note that the impleading application was allowed on 11.11.2021. The order of status quo was prior to the order made on impleading application. The impleading applicants were yet to come on record as of the date of the status quo order. Whenever temporary injunction application is moved, a duty casts on the Court to dispose of the application independently. However, in the present case, the Trial Court deferred hearing of the temporary injunction application i.e., I.A.No.5. Deferring temporary injunction application is impermissible. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to direct the Trial Court to hear on I.A.No.5 and dispose of the same within one month from today.

6. As far as rejection of I.A.No.6 is concerned, the plaintiffs requested the Trial Court to file replication to the defendants’ plea. In the written statement, the defendants denied the very relationship. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to move an application to file replication. The Trial Court on an erroneous approach concluded that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to file subsequent pleadings i.e., replication since there was no counter claim from the defendants. This is untenable.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), “subsequent pleadings” generally refers to any pleading filed after the defendant’s written statement, excluding those related to set- off or counterclaim. Repl