Interim Injunction Maintained Subject to Time-Bound Trial and Liberty to Move for Vacation on Default

The petitioner filed an application for modification/recalling of an order dated 06.01.2026 passed in C. Misc. No. 440 of 2025.

The original order directed the petitioner to conclude evidence within six months based on an undertaking and granted the respondents liberty to move for vacating an injunction if the petitioner defaulted.

The litigation pertains to a 2004 agreement for sale involving 23 acres of land, where 50% of the consideration (Rs. 11,75,500/-) was admittedly paid.

Despite high court directions in 2021 and 2023 to conclude the trial within one year, proceedings were delayed due to interlocutory applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

The petitioner sought to strike the liberty granted to respondents to vacate the injunction, arguing that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had upheld the injunction order in an SLP.

1. Whether the liberty granted to respondents to apply for vacating the injunction upon the petitioner's failure to conclude evidence should be modified or recalled in light of the Supreme Court's stay/order.

2. Whether further directions are required for the expeditious disposal of the underlying title suit and pending interim applications.

The court's reasoning was guided by the principle of Conditional Injunctions and Section 151 of the CPC regarding the inherent powers of the court to regulate its proceedings.

Order I Rule 10 of the CPC concerning the impleadment of parties.

The principle that a superior court’s order (Supreme Court) upholding an injunction must be read in its entirety, including any conditional timelines or directions for trial conclusion, rather than in isolation.

The Court observed that while the petitioner enjoyed a prima facie case based on the 50% payment, the trial had remained stagnant for over two years despite repeated mandates for a speedy trial.

The Court reasoned that the Supreme Court's order upheld the High Court's directions in toto, which included the necessity of concluding the trial within a year.

The High Court held that the liberty granted to the respondents to seek vacation of the injunction was a legitimate tool to ensure the petitioner did not use the injunction to indefinitely delay the trial.

The Court found no grounds for modification, emphasizing that no party can be restrained from raising legal issues before a trial court.

The MJC was disposed of with specific directions: the trial court must decide any pending Order I Rule 10 CPC petitions within one month of the order; the petitioner is directed to produce evidence immediately; and the trial court must proceed with the suit expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments.