The court emphasized that adjudicating interim relief in the absence of a concerned party compromises judicial fairness.

“O R D E R

1. Plaintiff has filed this application for granting status quo for 2 weeks to approach the Hon’ble High Court against the order rejecting ad-interim injunction.

2. Corporation opposed application stating tht ad-interim relief has been rejected after hearing and no merit for granting status quo.

3. Heard Adv. for the parties.

4. It is matter of record that by order dated 22/11/2022 ad- interim relief has been rejected after hearing the parties. The plaintiff is praying for status quo. However, granting status quo would amount to granting ad-interim injunction which is rejected by the Court. Hence, I pass following order:

ORDER Application Exh. 4 is rejected.

Plaintiff is directed to register the N/M till next date.

Authenticated copy of this roznama be supplied to both the parties.

Already adjd. To 19/01/2023 for N/M reply and W/S of deft. Nos. 1 to 4.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that the impugned order rejecting the ad-interim reliefs on the Notice of Motion filed by the appellant is ex-facie illegal contending that a reasoned order ought not have been passed in absence of the appellant/plaintiff, which was to have a serious prejudice and impact on the cause being persued by the appellant in the Notice of Motion. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that, glaringly the learned trial Judge in paragraph 4 of the subsequent order dated 24 November, 2022 has observed that “It is matter of record that by order dated 22/11/2022 ad-interim relief has been rejected after hearing the parties”. It is her submission that such an observation of the learned trial Judge on the face of the record is perverse as the plaintiff was never heard, when the order dated 22 November, 2022 was passed rejecting the ad-interim relief. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has submitted that in these circumstances an opportunity ought to be granted to the appellant/plaintiff to move the City Civil Court in the Notice of Motion praying for ad-interim relief and/or for interim relief, as the trial Court may consider appropriate, by setting aside the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has sought to argue on merits. However, he is not in a position to dislodge the submissions as made on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that when the order dated 22 November, 2022 was passed by the trial Court, the appellant/plaintiff was neither present nor represented. He is also not in a position to dislodge the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff in respect of the subsequent order dated 24 November, 2022.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused both the orders dated 22 November, 2022 and 24 November, 2022, in my opinion, there is much substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the appellant/ plaintiff. It clearly appears that in the absence of the appellant/plaintiff, an adjudication on ad-interim reliefs on merits has been undertaken by learned trial Judge in passing the impugned order. It appears that in passing of the impugned order, the Municipal Corporation was extensively heard and submissions were recorded on the basis of which the learned trial Judge has arrived at a conclusion that no case for ad-interim relief was made out by the appellant/plaintiff, in absence of the appellant/plaintiff. If the proceedings were listed and the plaintiff was not represented, it was available to the learned trial Judge to not pass an order and leave the appellant/plaintiff to register the Notice of Motion. However, what has been done is adjudication of ad-interim relief on merits.

6. It appears that immediately duri