Facts
The plaintiffs filed a partition suit seeking separate possession of their respective shares and consequential reliefs.
Source reference: p. 3Along with the suit, they sought temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; although an ad interim injunction was initially granted, the trial court dismissed the application after hearing the parties.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The plaintiffs appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.
Source reference: p. 4During the appeal, settlement discussions failed, and the plaintiffs sought a restraint against alienation of the suit properties.
Source reference: pp. 4–6The respondents’ counsel undertook that the defendants would not alienate the properties until disposal of the suit, and the plaintiffs agreed to continuation of that undertaking.
Source reference: pp. 4–6Issues
1. Whether the appeal against dismissal of the temporary-injunction application should be disposed of on the basis of the respondents’ undertaking not to alienate the suit properties pending the suit
Source reference: pp. 5–72. Whether the trial court’s order dismissing the injunction application should be set aside without adjudicating the merits of the application
Source reference: pp. 6–7Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, which provides for an appeal from specified orders under Order XXXIX.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The underlying injunction application was made under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which govern temporary injunctions.
Source reference: pp. 3–4The Court did not apply or articulate any substantive test for granting an injunction, and cited no precedent; it expressly left the merits of the dispute and application undecided.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, 7Reasoning
Rather than determine whether the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for temporary injunctive relief, the Court acted on the parties’ agreement that the defendants would not alienate the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties until disposal of the suit.
Source reference: pp. 5–7It therefore recorded the undertaking, set aside the trial court’s order, and left all contentions open, making clear that it had expressed no opinion on the merits.
Source reference: pp. 5–7Holding
The appeal was disposed of, and the trial court’s order dated 23 January 2026 dismissing I.A. No. 1 was set aside.
The undertaking by respondent-defendants 1 and 2 not to alienate the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties until disposal of the suit was recorded.
Source reference: pp. 7–8The Court left the merits and all contentions open and directed the trial court to endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously, with the parties to cooperate.
Source reference: pp. 7–8Original Court PDF
MR. SRIDHARvsMS. RAMA RANI ALIAS RAMAHSHREE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
