The court ruled that failure to consider temporary injunction applications within 30 days allows the aggrieved party to appeal, reinforcing the right to timely justice.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Sri Rajesh A., learned counsel has filed Vakalath for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the same is taken on record.

2. Defendant No.8 has filed the present appeal questioning the order dated 19.04.2025 thereby, the Trial Court has deferred the hearing on the applications I.As.1 to 5 in O.S. No.2102/2024. Being aggrieved by deferring the applications without hearing, the appeal is filed.

3. I.A. No.1 is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ’CPC’) by the plaintiff, I.A.2 is filed by defendant No.8 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, I.A.3 is filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the defendant No.8, I.A.4 is filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading and I.A.5 is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.

4. Among the above said applications, three applications were filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. When the applications are filed seeking relief of temporary injunction by invoking order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, then the same shall be considered within a period of 30 days as per Order XXXIX Rule 3 (a) of CPC without deferring for indefinite period. Though there were no order passed on the applications filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, question of maintaining the appeal in this regard without considering and keeping the pending applications, the appeal is maintainable in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs. S. Chellappan and others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 695 at para No.21 held as under:

It is the acknowledged position of law that no party can be forced to suffer for the inaction of the court or its omissions to act according to the procedure established by law. Under the normal circumstances the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal only against an order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2-A, 4 or 10 of Order 39 of the Code in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. He cannot approach the appellate or revisional court during the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction. In such circumstances the party who does not get justice due to the inaction of the court in following the mandate of law must have a remedy. So we are of the view that in a case where the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3-A of the Code is flouted, the aggrieved party, shall be entitled to the right of appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of a temporary injunction, against the order remaining in force. In such appeal, if preferred, the appellate court shall be obliged to entertain the appeal and further to take note of the omission of the subordinate court in complying with the provisions of Rule 3-A. In appropriate cases the appellate court, apart from granting or vacating or modifying the order of such injunction, may suggest suitable action against the erring judicial officer, including recommendation to take steps for making adverse entry in his ACRs. Failure to decide the application or vacate the ex-parte temporary injunction shall, for the purposes of the appeal, be deemed to be the final order passed on the application for temporary injunction, on the date of expiry of thirty days mentioned in the Rule.

5. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to follow the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and consider to dispose of the pending applications filed for temporary injunction as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law within a period of two weeks and also liberty is reserved to the applicants who have filed their respective applications to move before the vacation Court for consideration of the applications. Accordi