IMPORTANT POINT
When statute prescribes particular procedure set out in provision, in which word “cause of action” conspicuously missing, not possible to hold that defendant can maintain application for injunction, if it is based on same cause of action as of plaintiff or incidental thereto, such application cannot be maintained if cause of action for defendant arises subsequent to cause of action plaintiff pleaded.

These writ petitions are placed before us by the Hon’ble Chief Justice on the request of the learned Single Judge to refer the following question to a larger Bench for consideration:

“Whether the defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction can maintain an application for injunction under Order 39, Rule 1(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908?”

2. Before answering the above question, it is useful to briefly refer to the facts giving rise to the reference.

3. W.P. No. 58906 of 2013 is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 499 of 2010, a suit instituted on 2.12.2010 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chitradurga for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs also sought interim order of temporary injunction by filing an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 but, the Court passed an ex parte order on 3.12.2010 to maintain status quo, till appearance of the defendants. On service of summons, the defendants appeared on 1.10.2011 and the 3rd defendant, on 9.8.2012, filed I.A. No. 11 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The learned Civil Judge by order dated 16.1.2013 dismissed I.A. No. 11 filed by the 3rd defendant under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd defendant preferred M.A. No. 12 of 2013 and the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chitradurga, while allowing the appeal set aside the order of dismissal of IA. No. 11 and granted an order of temporary injunction against the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiffs have filed the writ petition.

4. W.P. No. 16412 of 2014, is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 19 of 2012, a suit filed on 18.6.2012 for a declaration that they are the lawful owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit properties and for a decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiffs had also maintained an I.A. for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance, On 13.6.2013, the 1st defendant too filed an LA under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for an order of temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of Item No, 1 of the suit schedule, The Trial Court after hearing the parties, while dismissing the I.A for temporary injunction filed both by the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, directed them to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A No.7, the 1st defendant preferred M.A No. 16 of 2013 before the District Court, Chitradurga. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga by order dated 24.1.2014, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Court and granted temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the 1st defendant’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of 1st item of the suit schedule, by allowing IA No.7. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiffs have preferred the writ petition.

5. The parties are referred to as per their original rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that Section 94 of CPC read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC confers power on the Civil Court to grant an order of temporary injunction. While the defendant in a suit is conferred with right to seek temporary injunction in a case falling under Order 39, Rule 1(a) of CPC, no such right is conferred on him in the cases falling under clauses (b) and (c) thereof. The Civil Court no doubt, has inherent powers to pass such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent the abu