THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3759 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction to the learned Senior Civil Judge at Sircilla, to take up and adjudicate I.A. No.444 of 2013 in O.S. No.89 of 2009, expeditiously and in accordance with law.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials 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. 444 of 2013 pending without adjudication. He submits that the petitioner instituted O.S. No.89 of 2009 seeking declaration of title, along with the present interlocutory application for grant of temporary injunction under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). It is contended that despite the filing of the respondents’ counter, the interlocutory application has remained pending without any progress, thereby causing grave prejudice to the petitioner’s rights and interests. Learned counsel prays that appropriate directions be issued 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.444 of 2013, which pertains to an application for declaration of title, has been pending since 2013, notwithstanding the completion of pleadings. The very object of an interlocutory application for temporary injunction is to maintain status quo ante and to prevent irreparable injury pending final adjudication of the suit. Delay in considering such an application frustrates its purpose and may render the relief sought in the suit nugatory.

6. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161, observed that interim injunctions must be decided expeditiously, as undue delay may cause injustice to a party whose rights are at stake. Similarly, in T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty, AIR 1955 Mad 430, it was held that interim orders are intended to protect the subject matter of the litigation and must, therefore, be decided with promptitude.

7. Considering that the interlocutory application has been pending since 2013 despite the respondents having filed their counter, 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. 444 of 2013 in O.S.No.89 of 2009 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 four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

9. With this direction, this 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: 17-10-2025 mmr