JUDGMENT

A suit for injunction simplicitor was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that there is no cause of action for the suit. The suit is by an institution for the grant injunction against one of their employees who was ousted from the institution, the defendant in the suit. It is so unfortunate that, the suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that there is no cause of action. The expression ‘cause of action’ stands for the bundle of facts and is not confined only to one or two specific dates. Apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff would also constitute a cause of action for maintaining a suit for injunction against trespass. It is an institution represented by its principal. It is after recording the evidence the suit was dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of action.

2. In appeal, the First Appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for considering the two different Interlocutory Applications, which were filed in the First Appellate stage in order to adjudicate the question of status and representative capacity of the plaintiff. I am at a loss to understand why the First Appellate Court remanded both the Interlocutory Applications to the trial court though it was filed in the First Appellate Court. This Court by order dated 31.05.2016 in CRP.No.223/2016 directed the First Appellate Court to consider both the Interlocutory Applications and to decide the same. That has not been complied with by the First Appellate Court. Then again a remand was ordered for deciding those Interlocutory Applications. The suit is of the year 2014.

3. It is now settled that once the parties have proceeded with the suit and adduced evidence without adjudicating the status of the plaintiff or competency to represent the plaintiff as a preliminary issue, the same cannot be agitated at the final stage of the suit. Further, the dismissal of the suit on the ground of lack of cause of action, prima facie found to be not tenable. The jurisdiction vested with the First Appellate Court has not been excercised in its correct perspective. The legal position is very much settled by this Court in Gopalakrishnan and Another v. Ponnappan and others [2021 (5) KHC 548] followed by the legal position settled by the Apex Court in Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Ranadhir Chandra Dutta (1988 KHC 883). Hence, the order of remand is hereby set aside. The parties shall appear before the First Appellate Court on 25.07.2022 to proceed further in the matter.

The appeal is allowed accordingly.