Courts must consider urgency before mechanically issuing notice on interim injunction applications.

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration, mandatory injunction to remove an alleged encroachment, and permanent injunction, together with an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The trial court issued notice and posted the application for hearing on 18 November 2026.

Claiming that the court had not considered the urgency of the requested interim relief, the plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the trial court’s order issuing notice and posting the interim-injunction application without addressing the asserted urgency warranted intervention under Article 227?

Whether the plaintiff’s grievance could be addressed by directing the trial court to advance the hearing and decide the application within a specified period?

The petition invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction over the trial court’s handling of the interim application.

The application before the trial court was under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provide the procedural basis for seeking temporary injunctions.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not determine the substantive requirements for granting an injunction; it directs the trial court to consider the application and the asserted urgency.

The High Court recorded the plaintiff’s contention that the suit property required preservation and that delay could cause irreparable loss, but considered that the grievance could be addressed before the trial court.

Rather than deciding the merits of the injunction request, it directed the plaintiff to file a memo with a copy of its order, enabling the trial court to advance the hearing, consider the grievance, and apply its mind to the application.

If the respondents had already appeared, they were to be heard before any order was made.

The plaintiff was permitted to seek an earlier hearing by filing a memo, and the trial court was directed to hear and dispose of the application within two weeks from the date it advanced the hearing; appeared respondents were to be heard before orders were passed.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.