V. Chitambaresh, J.

Which is the appropriate forum to move an application alleging violation of injunction under R.2A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' only)? The issue arises on a reference made by the learned single Judge noticing a conflict between Dinesh v. Pioneer Shopping Complex (P) Ltd. (2002 (1) KLT 35) and Indiradevi v. Prasannan (2009 (1) KLT 961).

2. The plaintiffs sought an order of temporary injunction in I.A. No.333/2016 restraining the defendants from altering the traditional route of the temple procession (Parakku Ezhunnullathu) pending disposal of O.S. No. 51/2014. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction whereas the lower appellate court in C.M.A. No. 31/2014 allowed the same. This Court in O.P.(Civil) No.232/2016 filed by the defendants set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court and modified the interim arrangement to be maintained pending suit. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:

"If a procession is taken out by the first petitioner temple outside the properties which form part of its premises, it shall go to the houses in the order in which they are situated, which shall continue till the disposal of the suit."

3. The plaintiffs thereafter filed I.A. No.333/2016 alleging violation of injunction under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the C.P.C. to which the defendants have filed a counter affidavit and the trial court is in seizin of the matter. The defendants in the meanwhile have filed the present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the maintainability of I.A. No. 333/2016. It is the case of the defendants that an application of that nature would lie only to this Court since what is complained of is the violation of the judgment in O.P.(Civil) No. 232/2016. The learned single Judge before whom the Original Petition came up for hearing felt that an authoritative pronouncement on the issue is warranted in the circumstances.

4. We heard Mr. R.D. Shenoy, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners/defendants and Mr. N.N. Sugunapalan, Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs.

5. An order of temporary injunction under Rule 1 of Order 39 of the C.P.C. is for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to the property. The order of injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside either by recourse to Rule 4 of Order 39 or in an appeal under Rule 1 (r) of Order 43 of the C.P.C. or in an Original Petition therefrom. The final order so passed would hold the field until the disposal of the suit which would merge with the decree to be eventually passed and the same will bind the parties thereafter. The judgment in O.P.(Civil) No.232/2016 is one such order which would govern the parties until the final disposal of the suit which is still pending on the file of the trial court.

6. The defendants contended that only 'the court granting the injunction or making the order, or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred' can deal with an application under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the C.P.C. We wish to emphasise that a procedural statute like the C.P.C. should not be construed in a literal sense without understanding the scheme of the statute. The judgment in O.P.(Civil) No.232/2016 modifying the order passed in an application for temporary injunction should be deemed to have been made by the trial court itself. Such deeming effect is given solely for the purpose of disposal of the application filed alleging violation of injunction under R.2A of Order 39 of the C.P.C. Expediency warrants that the court where the main proceeding is pending (which in the instant case is the court of the Munsiff where the suit is pending) deals with an application of that nature. Similarly the appellate court (if the appeal suit is pending on its file) shall deal with an application alleging viola