A court may consider the maintainability of a suit while deciding an interim injunction application, but it must not render a conclusive jurisdictional finding without framing a preliminary issue or providing parties a fair opportunity to be heard, especially if non-grant of interim relief could lead to irreversible consequences.

The question that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the Trial Court, while considering an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was justified in recording a conclusive finding on the maintainability of the suit and rejecting the application?”

2. This miscellaneous first appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 31.01.2026 passed in O.S. No.1282/2025 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddapalapura (‘Trial Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties has been rejected.

Brief facts:

3. The plaintiffs instituted suit seeking specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 22.12.2023, alleging that defendant No.1 had agreed to offer the suit schedule properties for joint development and had received substantial consideration pursuant thereto. It is the case of the plaintiffs that despite readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, the defendants failed to honour the terms of the MOU and on the contrary, attempted to create third party rights.

4. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third party rights in respect of the suit schedule properties.

5. The defendants entered appearance and filed objections, inter alia, contending that the alleged MOU is disputed, that no concluded contract exists and more importantly, that the suit itself is not maintainable before the Civil Court, as the dispute falls within the ambit of commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

6. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the rival contention, dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the dispute constitutes a commercial dispute and consequently, no prima facie case is made out. The Trial Court has also observed that the application suffers from procedural defects inasmuch as it combines multiple reliefs and that the description of the suit property is vague and insufficient. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for temporary injunction, the present appeal is filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the impugned order rejecting the application for temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit schedule properties is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. It is submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the paramount and admitted fact that respondent No.1 had entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the appellants and had also received substantial consideration pursuant thereto. In such circumstances, the existence of a prima facie contractual relationship and the corresponding rights in favour of the appellants was clearly made out, warranting protection by way of interim injunction.

8. It is further contended that finding of the Trial Court that the dispute constitutes a commercial dispute “under Section 2 (1) (c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015”, is premature, legally untenable and based on misinterpretation of the statutory provisions.

9. Learned counsel submits that the suit schedule properties are agricultural lands and that at the time of execution of the MOU, they were not being used exclusively for trade or commerce. The very proposed future development of the property into a residenti