Courts must assess interim-injunction applications before mechanically deferring them for service of summons.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S. No. 571/2019, challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 13 November 2019 issuing emergent notice to the defendants without considering their application for an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

They relied on material concerning their claim to possession, including a decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 1342/2006, which they stated was being enforced in execution proceedings.

The High Court had granted an interim order on 21 November 2019, continued from time to time; the petitioners submitted that summons had still not been served despite repeated attempts.

The respondents were served in the writ proceedings but did not appear.

Whether the Trial Court could defer consideration of the petitioners’ Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC application by issuing emergent notice without considering the material supporting the request for interim protection.

Whether the High Court’s interim order should remain in force until the Trial Court considers and decides that application.

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, a court considering an application for temporary or ad-interim injunction must assess the material placed before it against the established requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

It must apply its mind to relevant prima facie material and cannot mechanically defer consideration of the application merely by directing issuance of suit summons.

The Trial Court must decide the application in accordance with law, including whether ex-parte consideration is permissible in the circumstances; no specific judicial precedent was cited.

The High Court did not determine whether the petitioners had established entitlement to an injunction.

It held that the decree for specific performance and other material bearing on the petitioners’ possession claim required consideration by the Trial Court, even though their ultimate effect remained for that court to assess.

Given the age of the suit, the continued non-service alleged by the petitioners, and the existing High Court interim order, the Trial Court was directed to consider the steps taken to effect service and decide the injunction application on the pleadings and documents, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations or the continuation of its interim order.

The High Court directed the Trial Court to consider and decide the Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC application expeditiously and in accordance with law; the High Court’s interim order was to continue until that decision.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.