THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4057 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla, to take up and dispose of I.A. No.181 of 2025 in O.S. No.69 of

2025, expeditiously and in accordance with law.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present revision is filed being aggrieved by the inaction of the trial Court in keeping I.A. No.181 of 2025 pending without adjudication. He submits that the petitioner instituted O.S. No.69 of 2025 seeking perpetual injunction and, along with the suit, filed the present interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction. It is contended that despite the respondents having filed their counter, the interlocutory application has remained pending without progress, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner’s rights and interests. Learned counsel therefore prays for issuance of appropriate directions to the trial Court to dispose of the said interlocutory application within a stipulated time.

4. I have considered the submissions made and examined the record.

5. Having regard to the facts of the case, it is evident that I.A. No.181 of 2025, an application seeking temporary injunction, has been pending since March 2025, notwithstanding the completion of pleadings. The very purpose of an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is to preserve the subject matter of the suit, maintain the status quo, and prevent irreparable injury pending final adjudication. Delay in deciding such an application defeats its purpose and may render the ultimate relief sought in the suit illusory.

6. In Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that interim injunction applications must be decided expeditiously, as undue delay may cause irreparable injustice to a party. Similarly, in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty, AIR 1955 Mad 430, it was held that interlocutory orders are intended to safeguard the subject matter of the litigation and must therefore be dealt with promptly.

7. Considering that the interlocutory application has remained pending since March 2025 despite completion of pleadings, and bearing in mind the petitioner’s grievance that such inaction is prejudicial to his interests, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be prioritized by the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to take up I.A. No.181 of 2025 in O.S. No.69 of 2025 on a priority basis and dispose of the same on its merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 14.11.2025

CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4057 of 2025 Dated: 14.11.2025 CHS