An injunction limited to the suit’s disposal expires upon dismissal, despite pending counterclaim or restoration proceedings.

The appellants challenged an order of the learned Trial Court allowing an application under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and substituting the transferee of the suit property as a defendant in the pending suit.

The suit, originally instituted for partition and subsequently amended into a declaratory suit with consequential reliefs, was subject to an injunction order dated 29 November 2018, which restrained dealings with the suit property “till disposal of the suit”.

The suit was later dismissed for default. However, a counterclaim continued to remain pending, and the plaintiffs/appellants had also filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for restoration of the suit.

During the period after dismissal of the suit, but while the counterclaim and restoration application were pending, the suit property was transferred to Ravi Khaitan, who was thereafter sought to be substituted in the suit.

Whether the injunction order expressed to operate “till disposal of the suit” continued after the suit was dismissed for default because a counterclaim and an application for restoration under Order IX Rule 13 CPC remained pending?

Whether the transfer of the suit property after dismissal of the suit was invalid for allegedly violating the injunction order and, consequently, whether the transferee could be substituted under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC?

Whether the principle in Surjit v. Harbans Singh, concerning alienation in violation of a subsisting injunction, applied to the present case?

The Court applied Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, under which a person acquiring an interest in the subject matter of a suit during its pendency may be substituted or added, subject to the Court’s discretion.

It applied the principle that a counterclaim possesses a distinct identity and the trappings of an independent suit, and may survive dismissal of the original suit.

The Court further held that an injunction expressly operative “till disposal of the suit” ordinarily expires upon dismissal of that suit, including dismissal for default; a subsequent restoration of the suit does not retrospectively revive the injunction.

Under Surjit v. Harbans Singh, an assignment made in defiance of a subsisting injunction may amount to violation of the injunction, and the assignee may be disentitled from impleadment on that basis; however, that principle applies only where a valid injunction was subsisting at the time of transfer.

The appeal was considered under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC.

The Court distinguished the counterclaim from the original suit. Although the counterclaim survived dismissal of the suit because it had an independent character, its pendency did not extend the life of an injunction expressly limited to the disposal of the suit.

The injunction therefore expired automatically when the suit was dismissed for default. Similarly, the mere pendency of the Order IX Rule 13 restoration application did not constitute a continuation of the suit for purposes of preserving the injunction.

Since the transfer occurred when no injunction was subsisting, it could not be treated as an alienation in violation of the injunction.

The later restoration of the suit, if any, could not retrospectively invalidate the transfer or revive the expired injunction.

Accordingly, the transferee acquired a legally relevant interest in the subject matter and was properly substituted under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

The rule in Surjit was therefore held inapplicable because that case concerned a transfer made in breach of a subsisting restraint order.

The transfer in favour of Ravi Khaitan was therefore not ex facie invalid or void for breach of injunction, and it constituted a legitimate basis for his substitution under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

FMA 96 of 2026 was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC, and CAN 2 of 2026 was consequently dismissed.

CAN 4 of 2026, seeking addition of Ravi Khaitan as a respondent, was allowed.

There was no order as to costs.