The trial court erred by not extending the interim injunction without assessing the merits of the case, necessitating correction under Article 227.

ORDER :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the docket order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, in I.A.No.308 of 2019 in O.S.No.154 of 2019.

2. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner, as plaintiff, filed the above suit in O.S.No.154 of 2019 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, for a permanent injunction and for a mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants; that at the time of filing the suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 to 3 of the CPC for an interim injunction; that the trial court, by its order dated 02.04.2019, granted an ex parte interim injunction, which was extended up to 14.08.2024; and that on 14.08.2024, the trial court passed the following orders:

“I.A.No..326/24, I.A.329/24 in O.S.No.154/19 -Counter of R1 to R3 and R5 adjourned call on 22.08.2024 I.A.377/21 in O.S.No.154/19 - Respondent side enquiry adjourned call on 22.08.2024 I.A.308/19 in O.S.154/19-I.O. extended memo not filed. Hence I.O. not extended. I.A.s are pending call on 22.08.2024 Steps for 1^st Defendant call on 22.08.2024. Now the case is posted on 30.09.2024 for enquiry.”

3. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would submit that, taking advantage of the non-extension of the interim injunction, the third respondent started construction; that meanwhile, the first to third respondents filed an application in I.A.No.381 of 2019 for vacating the interim injunction, and the same is posted for enquiry; that the trial court, without conducting an enquiry on the above applications, by the impugned docket order, simply stated that the memo for extension of the interim injunction had not been filed and the interim injunction was not extended; and that the non-extension of the interim injunction by the trial court on the ground that no memo had been filed for its extension is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court, and would pray for invoking the power of superintendence on the subordinate courts conferred on this Court in order to ensure that the subordinate courts exercise their power in a proper and just manner. To support his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Thirugnanasambandam v. Sundaramurthy Chettiar and others reported in 2014 (4) CTC 850, in which it has been held that this Court has the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over subordinate courts.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable and that only an appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the CPC; therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. To support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Akmal Ali and others and etc. v. State of Assam and others , reported in AIR 1984 GAU 86, in which it has been held that only an appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the CPC.

6. Heard on both sides. Records perused.

7. The question that arises for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is whether it is maintainable against the docket order passed by the trial court.

8. It is no doubt that, as per Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the CPC, against the orders passed under Rules 1, 2, 2-A, 4, and 10 of Order 39 of the CPC, i.e., interim orders or interim injunctions, only an appeal lies under the provisions of Section 104 of the CPC. In the present case, the facts