THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2983 of 2025

ORAL ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

Constitution of India in failing to dispose of the pending I.A.No.65 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2025 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Khanapur, Nirmal District, contrary to the mandatory provision under Order 39 Rules 2 and 3 of CPC and indiscriminately adjourning the case without disposing

the Ad-Interim Injunction Application.

2. Heard Sri C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court had erred in granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the petitioner on 04.03.2025, and despite the petitioner having filed a counter, failed to dispose of the same in violation of the mandatory provisions under Order 39 Rules 2 and 3 of the CPC. He further submitted that the petitioner is the true owner of the property in question and

had already filed O.S.No.26 of 2024 for partition before the same Court, in which the respondent is a party. He contended that the respondent/plaintiff, by suppressing the pendency of the said partition suit, had obtained the ex-parte injunction, which is not maintainable in law against the true owner. He further contended that the subject property in the present suit forms part of the partition suit, and hence, the continued operation of the injunction adversely affects the petitioner’s rights. Therefore, he prayed the Court to direct the trial Court to dispose of the ad-interim injunction application.

4. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the present revision petition has been filed aggrieved by the inaction of the trial Court in disposing of I.A.No.65 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Khanapur, Nirmal District. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the failure of the trial Court to dispose of the Ad-Interim Injunction Application, despite the counter having been filed as early as April 2025. The continued adjournment of the matter, without deciding the injunction application, is in clear violation of the mandatory provisions under Order 39 Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court ought to have adhered to the procedure prescribed under the CPC and decided the injunction application expeditiously. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of I.A.No.65 of 2025 strictly in accordance with law, by following the mandate of Order 39 Rules 2 and 3 CPC, on or before the next date of hearing, without granting any unnecessary adjournments.

6. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date: 22.08.2025 SAI