An injunction cannot be granted when the underlying suit has been dismissed without restoration, as such orders require the revival of the original proceedings.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER Sri.Ameet Kumar Deshpande., Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Ganesh S.Kalaburgi., for the petitioner and Sri.Sudhirsingh R.Vijapur., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

2. The order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the III Addl.

Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura in M.A.No.06/2022 vide Annexure-R is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

4. The Archeological Survey of India filed a suit against the President, Sikandar Masjeed and Darga Bajam Isrib Navab Aheti Sunnat Ijamath seeking certain reliefs. After the issuance of the suit summons, the defendant filed written statement. The suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.09.2021. The plaintiff moved an application under Order

9 Rule 9 R/w Section 151 of CPC to set-aside the order of dismissal. The application was registered as Miscellaneous No.29/2021. During the pendency of the said application, an application was moved by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction. The Trial Court vide order dated 23.12.2022 rejected the application and vacated the order of temporary injunction. As against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Court in M.A.No.6/2022. The Appellate Court vide order dated 11.01.2023 allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of the Trial Court and the parties were directed to maintain Status Quo in respect of the suit property. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the grant of injunction in a dismissed suit. It is not in dispute that the suit was dismissed for default and the same is yet to be restored. The Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly vacated the order of injunction. The Appellate Court overlooked the relevant aspects of the matter and directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The Appellate Court could not have passed the order of status-quo since the Trial Court is yet to pass orders for restoration of the suit. A Court cannot order an injunction in a dismissed suit unless the dismissal order is set-aside and the suit is restored, because an injunction is an interlocutory order that naturally ceases with the suit’s closure. To provide an injunction order for a previously dismissed suit, a party must first move to have the dismissal set-aside, thereby reviving the original interlocutory order, or have the Court grant a new order of injunction after the case is restored. Alternatively, after the suit is restored, the Court can consider a new application for an injunction, as the case will be proceeding on its merits once again. In the present case, there is a closure of the suit and it is yet to be revived. Hence, the Appellate Court could not have granted the relief of injunction. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated

11.01.2023 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura in M.A.No.06/2022 vide Annexure-R is quashed.

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.