An injunction cannot be vacated solely for the plaintiff’s absence without grounds under Order XXXIX Rule 4.

The Trial Court had initially granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff/appellant.

By Order No. 54 dated 2 July 2026, it vacated that injunction, apparently relying on the plaintiff’s absence in person and without giving reasons.

The appellant’s appeal was filed on 2 September 2026, after the limitation period had expired on or about 1 August 2026.

In the intervening period, the appellant had mistakenly pursued a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order.

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned where it resulted from the appellant’s bona fide, mistaken pursuit of an Article 227 petition.

Whether the Trial Court’s vacation of the ad-interim injunction could stand when the order gave no adequate reasons and relied on the plaintiff’s absence in person.

Under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside on the grounds provided by that provision; the court must address the relevant basis for doing so.

A judicial order vacating an injunction must give reasons sufficient to explain the decision.

The judgment also refers to Order VII Rule 11 CPC as governing the defendant’s pending application for rejection of the plaint, and to Article 227 of the Constitution in describing the appellant’s mistaken procedural recourse.

No precedent is cited.

The Court accepted the appellant’s bona fide error in pursuing an Article 227 petition as a sufficient explanation for the approximately 33-day delay and condoned it.

On the merits, it found that the plaintiff’s absence in person did not, by itself, establish a basis under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to vacate the injunction.

Because the impugned order contained no meaningful reasoning, it could not be sustained.

It admitted and allowed FMAT 355 of 2026, setting aside the Trial Court’s Order No. 54 dated 2 July 2026.

CAN 2 of 2026 was disposed of.

The Trial Court was asked to decide the defendant’s Order VII Rule 11 application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three weeks after reopening following the annual vacation, and thereafter to take up and decide the injunction application promptly, depending on the outcome of the rejection application.

There was no order as to costs.