Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 2646
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA, MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ
RT. REV. DR. PETER BALDEV – Appellant
Versus
THE SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF NORTH INDIA – Respondent
SLP(C) No.-009060 - 2024
Advocates:
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR, Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv., Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv., Mr. Rongon, Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR, Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv., Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv., Mr. Rongon, Adv.
The Trial Court must evaluate the legality of the injunction and the maintainability of the suit, ensuring independent consideration of the case merits.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 4 - Temporary injunction - The Trial Court granted a temporary injunction to the petitioner, which was challenged by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court observed that the Trial Court should have considered the appropriateness of granting the injunction - The matter is pending for further hearing on 27.04.2024. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
(B) Injunction - The court emphasized that the Trial Court must hear all objections regarding the maintainability of the suit and the legality of the injunction granted - The High Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously while disregarding certain observations made by the High Court. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff is the petitioner who obtained a temporary injunction from the Trial Court on 03.04.2023. The defendant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC, which is pending and scheduled for hearing on 27.04.2024. The defendant also challenged the injunction in the High Court, which noted the need for careful consideration of the injunction's legality.
Findings of Court:
The High Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the pending application and to consider all objections raised by the defendant regarding the injunction and the suit's maintainability.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the appropriateness of the injunction granted by the Trial Court and the pending application under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Trial Court must evaluate the objections regarding the injunction's legality and the maintainability of the suit, ensuring that the matter is resolved on its own merits without undue influence from prior observations made by the High Court.
Result: The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
ORDER
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction to the petitioner on 03.04.2023. Meanwhile, the application of the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC is presently pending before the Trial Court which is to be taken up on 27.04.2024. All the same, defendant/respondent also filed petition under
- Signature Not Verified favour of the plaintiff/petitioner in which an interim order was passed by the High Court wherein it did mention the pendency of Order 39 Rule 4, CPC application and its likelihood to be taken up.
- At the same time, the High Court also observes that the Court while granting an injunction ought to have considered that in this case no injunction ought to have been granted and for this reason, this order been challenged by the plaintiff, and has only adjourned the matter for 30.04.2024. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that since the application under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC is already pending and has to be taken up on 27.04.2024, let the Trial Court proceed with the matter in accordance with law. It shall hear all the objections of the defendant including the maintainability of the suit itself as well as the legality of granting injunction in the case in the first place.
- With these observations, we request the Trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
- We also make it clear that any observations made by the High Court from paras 6 and 7 need not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court which shall decide the case on its own merits.
