2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.Ravi, J
Jeril Mary John – Appellant
Versus
Shivsa Granite LLP – Respondent
OP(C) 2611 OF 2025

A trial court is duty-bound to hear and dispose of a pending amendment application, which corrects fundamental errors such as property descriptions, before proceeding to decide an interlocutory application for injunction to avoid waste of judicial time and ineffective orders.

Headnote:The case involves a request for a writ of mandamus directed at trial court proceedings to prioritize an amendment application over an interlocutory injunction application. The petitioner, as plaintiff, sought a permanent prohibitory injunction but identified a misdescription of the survey number in the original plaint, necessitating an amendment application. The court examined the procedural necessity of resolving the amendment before determining the injunction application to ensure the suit is predicated on accurate property identification. The core issue is whether a trial court must adjudicate a pending application for amendment of pleadings before hearing an application for temporary injunction. The court held that the procedural integrity requires that pending formal amendments must be addressed to cure defects in the plaint before the court acts upon auxiliary injunction requests, as proceeding on an incorrect premise would be futile. The Original Petition is allowed with a mandate to the trial court to dispose of the amendment application (Ext.P3) before disposing of the injunction application (Ext.P2).