Appellate Court Must Decide Pending Injunction Application Without Being Influenced by Earlier Observations

The petitioner challenged an order dated 5 September 2026 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, in M.A. No. 181/2026, which restrained the petitioner from alienating the suit schedule property.

The writ petition alleged that the order violated natural justice, including the principle of audi alteram partem.

The High Court treated the grievance as limited to that alleged violation and directed the First Appellate Court to decide the pending application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

1. Whether the impugned order dated 5 September 2026 should be set aside on the petitioner’s limited grievance that it was passed in violation of natural justice.

2. Whether the pending application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC should be decided afresh by the First Appellate Court, without being influenced by the observations in the impugned order.

The petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and relied on the principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem.

The pending interim-relief application was under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which concerns temporary injunctions.

The Court did not cite or formulate any further statutory test, precedent, or general rule governing the merits of that application; it directed the First Appellate Court to determine it independently.

The Court confined its consideration to the alleged natural-justice violation and expressly stated that it was acting without examining the pleadings in the writ petition, although it had considered the submissions and perused some evidence.

Rather than determine the merits of the injunction application, it set aside the impugned order so the First Appellate Court could decide the pending application without being influenced by the order’s observations.

To preserve the suit properties in the interim, the Court requested counsel to advise their clients not to precipitate matters pending that decision.

The Court requested that the application be decided within two weeks and directed the parties to appear before the First Appellate Court on 5 October 2026; pending its decision, counsel were requested to advise their clients not to precipitate the matter.