Appellate Courts must expeditiously adjudicate pending injunction applications to prevent third-party property alienations and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The petitioners filed an appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2025) challenging the dismissal of a suit regarding agricultural land (Survey No. 239/1, Dumas, Surat).

Along with the appeal, they filed an injunction application (Exh. 5) on December 8, 2025.

Though the Trial Court had extended a stay for one month post-dismissal, the Appellate Court only issued a notice on the application.

During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents allegedly converted the land to non-agricultural status and executed a sale deed to a third party.

Consequently, the petitioners filed an additional injunction application (Exh. 11) on April 10, 2026, but the Appellate Court again only issued a notice.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a stay and directions for an expedited hearing.

1. Whether the Appellate Court failed in its duty by not adjudicating the injunction applications (Exh. 5 and Exh. 11) within a reasonable time, thereby allowing the subject matter of the suit to be altered.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct the expedite disposal of the pending interlocutory applications to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to superintend subordinate courts to ensure they perform their duties legally and within reasonable timeframes.

The Court applied the procedural principle that interim injunction applications (under Order XXXIX of the CPC) involving the potential alienation of suit property must be decided within a reasonable time to protect the subject matter of the litigation and prevent the creation of third-party rights that lead to a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court observed that despite the petitioners filing the initial injunction application in December 2025 and a subsequent application in April 2026 highlighting the respondents' actions (converting land and selling to third parties), the Appellate Court had not moved beyond issuing notices.

The Court reasoned that once an injunction application is filed, particularly when the applicant expresses anxiety over the changing status of the property, the concerned court is obligated to decide the matter within a reasonable timeframe.

The Court found that the respondents' actions during the pendency of the appeal—specifically the conversion of land status and execution of a sale deed—justified a direction for expedited hearing to avoid further legal complications and protect the petitioners' rights until the applications are heard on merit.

The Court further directed that if the petitioners request an advancement of the hearing date within one week, the Appellate Court must accept the request and expedite the hearing on its own merits without being influenced by the High Court's observations.