The court reaffirmed that petitioners must pursue available remedies and cannot bypass procedural requirements in civil suits.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2025 This original petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the impugned order dated 19.07.2022 in I.A.1435/2022 in O.S. 263/2022 for granting ad interim injunction by the Munsiff Court, Chittur, Palakkad.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents filed a suit as O.S.No.263/2022 for perpetual injunction and also filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of CPC, Wherein, the trial court passed the order directing the respondents to restrain them from getting the signatures of other persons in the attendance register of the petitioners school until further orders.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners is content that the petitioners are the teachers working in the said school, but without making them a defendant or party, the plaintiff filed the suit and obtained the order against the defendants, which also affects the petitioners. Therefore, they prayed for setting aside the order and approached this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent objected to the petition by contending that the petitioners had a remedy to file an application before the Civil Judge under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the interim order, or else, they could file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC before the District Court. But filing the petition under 227 of the Indian constitution is not maintainable, and hence, prayed for dismissal of the same.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, has stated that they are not a party in this suit, they have already filed a petition for impleading themselves as additional defendants, which is still pending.

7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. On a perusal of records, of course, the petitioners are not the defendants in the suit filed by the respondents. The order of injunction granted is not against the petitioners, but it is restraining the defendants from getting the signature of other person, who is working in the school. Admittedly, there is no document produced before this Court, whether the petitioners are working in this school and that is to be decided by the trial court on the application filed by the petitioner for impleading themselves as additional defendants. It is submitted that the application is still pending and no order has been passed by the trial court on the impleading application filed by the petitioner herein. Such being the case, the option available to the petitioners, if they are aggrieved by the order, they can implead themselves and file an application for vacating the ad-interim injunction by filing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, or else, with the leave of the Court they can file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC.

8. Therefore, when alternative remedies are available to the petitioners before the same court or before the appellate court, the petitioners are hurriedly appeared before this Court even without production of any documents to show that they are the teachers appointed by the respondent school. Therefore, it has to be considered by the trial court while considering the impleading applications, and this Court cannot go into whether they are appointed as teachers or not in this original petition.

9. Therefore, I am of the view that the order under challenge cannot be interfered by this Court at this stage.

Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed. Liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the trial court for filing the necessary application for vacating the interim order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. Once they are impleaded, the trial court is also directed to dispose of the I.A filed by them as early as possible, within two weeks from the date of hearing the I.A’s.