A defendant cannot seek an injunction restraining the plaintiff’s pathway interference under Order XXXIX Rule 1.

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 139 of 2025 before the Subordinate Court, Pappireddipatti, seeking declaration and permanent injunction, and also filed I.A. No. 1 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction.

The respondent/second defendant filed I.A. No. 2 of 2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, seeking an interim injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with his use of a pathway.

The plaintiff filed I.A. No. 5 of 2026 seeking rejection of the defendant’s interim-injunction application on the ground that it was not maintainable.

The Subordinate Court dismissed that application, holding that the defendant’s application was maintainable under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The defendant had also previously instituted O.S. No. 107 of 2025 concerning the same pathway before the Munsif Court, Pappireddipatti, which was subsequently withdrawn.

The plaintiff challenged the interlocutory order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether a defendant can maintain an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC in a suit instituted by the plaintiff seeking declaration and permanent injunction.

2. Whether the defendant’s prayer for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the defendant’s use of a pathway falls within Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC.

3. Whether the Subordinate Court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s application for rejection of the defendant’s interim-injunction application warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, under which a temporary injunction may be granted where property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree under clause (a), or where the defendant threatens to dispossess or injure the plaintiff in relation to the property under clause (c).

The Court held that both parties may invoke Order XXXIX Rule 1(a), because that clause refers to wrongful acts by “any party” to the suit; however, the reliefs under clauses (b) and (c) are available only to the plaintiff against the defendant.

A defendant’s application under Rule 1(a) must therefore concern the suit property being wasted, damaged, alienated, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree.

The Court also exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct a perverse order reflecting improper application of mind.

The Court distinguished between the limited circumstances in which a defendant may invoke Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) and a general claim for protection of the defendant’s alleged right of use.

Although a defendant may apply under Rule 1(a), the respondent’s prayer was not based on apprehended wasting, damaging, alienation, or wrongful sale of the pathway. Instead, he sought to restrain the plaintiff from interfering with his use of the pathway.

That relief did not fall within the statutory scope of Rule 1(a).

The respondent’s assertion that the plaintiff might obliterate the pathway could not expand the scope of the pending suit or justify granting the relief sought through the defendant’s application; he was required to pursue an independent remedy in accordance with law.

The Subordinate Court therefore failed to properly apply Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, rendering its order unsustainable under Article 227.

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the order dated 09 July 2026 in I.A. No. 5 of 2026 in I.A. No. 2 of 2025 in O.S. No. 139 of 2025 was set aside, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No order as to costs.