The trial court must provide reasoning when deciding applications for temporary injunctions and cannot merely issue notices without addressing the merits of the request.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court in Original Suit OS.No.7635/2025.

3. The present petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

a) To set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.7635/2025 by the Hon'ble XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on IA.No.1 vide Annexure - L.

b) Issue a writ in nature of direction or order to allow the IA No.1 in O.S.No.7635/2025 on the file of Hon'ble XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Court Bangalore vide Annexure - J.

c) To pass such other a writ or order this Hon'ble Court as deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the above case.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, wherein the learned trial Judge has issued emergent notice on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC along with suit summons, hence for having not passed an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

5. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents/defendants for the reason that the respondents/defendants have not been served with the notice in the original suit proceedings, and they are yet to come on record.

6. It is the contention of a learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that he has filed suit against the respondents/defendants seeking the following reliefs:

1. To declare that the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2025/03.09.2025 in registering Book No.1 Document No. INR-1-04072-2025-26 stored in Central Data Cell, at the office of the Sub- Registrar, Shivajinagar (Indiranagar) Bangalore executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 is null and void and the same may be cancelled.

2. To pass judgment and decree, to grant a permanent injunction, permanently restraining the defendants, their legal heirs, agents, Henchman, assignees and GPA holders not to interfere with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3. To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

7. It is contended that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit on 31.10.2025, and the trial Court, after the plaintiff argued the matter for the grant of an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, issued notice to the defendants. The notice was issued on 07.11.2025 as per the office note. The trial Court after hearing the petitioner/plaintiff, being not satisfied with grant of an ad- interim order issued notice to the respondents/defendants returnable by 08.12.2025.

8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that defendant No.1 has filed a suit against defendant No.2 on 10.11.2025 in OS No.7885/2025, which is now stated before this Court, wherein he has sought the relief of vacant possession of the very same suit schedule property.

9. The short point for consideration before this Court is:

1. Whether this Court needs to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court for non-passing of the order on grant of ad-interim temporary injunction on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC?

2. If so, what order?

10. Apparently, it is seen that the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is for the relief of declaration. He has placed several materials before the Court to substantiate his arguments. So also in the affidavit annexed to the application, the plaintiff h