Stay of trial does not prevent continuation of supplemental proceedings, including injunction applications, according to the principles established in precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sonipat, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 151 and 94 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for early disposal of its application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of ad interim injunction was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the petitioner along with his brother Vineet Kumar filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the Civil Courts at Sonipat. The Civil suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of an ad interim injunction. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (Annexure P-4) was filed by the respondents. The same was opposed by way of reply (Annexure P-5) and ultimately, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure P-6). The respondents then preferred CR No. 3283 of 2022 against the said order and, a Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-7) stayed the proceedings before the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for early decision of the injunction application. He further submits that even though proceedings before the trial Court have been stayed by the Coordinate Bench, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Amita Kaushish and others Vs. Sanjay Kaushish and others (1996) 7 SCC 19 which was followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gajendra Giri Vs. Munnalal Soni @ Kailash Chandra and others (2013) 05 MP CK 0058 and the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rameshwar Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Basti and others (1998) 05 AHC CK 0048 as also by the Bombay High Court in the case of The Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust and others Vs. Dipesh Mehta and others (2015) 10 BOM CK 0126, despite the stay of proceedings, supplemental proceedings which would include decision on an injunction application could continue.

4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In the case of Amita Kaushish and others Vs. Sanjay Kaushish and others (supra), it was categorically held by the Supreme Court of India that stay of the trial of a suit does not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory reliefs as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances. Further, in the case of Gajendra Giri Vs. Munnalal Soni @ Kailash Chandra and others (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held, while following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amita Kaushish and others Vs. Sanjay Kaushish and others (supra) that proceedings for considering and deciding the prayers of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are undoubtedly supplemental in nature, conduction of which does not require simultaneous conduction of suit proceedings as a sine qua non. It was held that such supplemental proceedings can go on even if the suit is held in abeyance, provided the suit is alive. A similar view was taken by the Allahabad High Court and Bombay High Court in the judgments referred to above.

6. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that even if proceedings in a suit are stayed, supplemental proceedings which would include decision on injunction application could be carried out. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking early disposal of the application for temporary injunc