Interim status quo order continued until disposal of the pending suit.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction concerning the suit-schedule ‘B’ properties and sought temporary relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The trial court dismissed the application on 22 April 2019, prompting this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

During the appeal, the High Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature and character of the property on 7 January 2021; that order remained in force.

By the time of hearing, the suit had reached the stage of cross-examination of the defendants’ witness.

Both sides agreed that the status quo order could continue until the suit was disposed of, and that the appeal could be disposed of.

1. Whether the High Court should dispose of the appeal while continuing its interim status quo order until disposal of the suit, given the suit’s advanced stage and the parties’ agreement.

2. Whether the appeal’s disposal should express any view on the merits of the parties’ claims.

The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, which provides for an appeal from specified orders concerning temporary injunctions.

The underlying application invoked Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which empower courts to grant temporary injunctions in appropriate cases.

The High Court did not set out or apply a substantive test for temporary injunctions or rely on any precedent; it addressed the appeal in light of the parties’ agreement and the procedural stage of the suit.

The Court noted that the suit had advanced to cross-examination of the defendants’ witness and that both parties agreed to continuation of the status quo order until disposal of the suit.

In those circumstances, it considered that keeping the appeal pending was unnecessary and that continuation of the existing interim protection would avoid hardship while allowing the trial to proceed expeditiously.

The Court expressly left the merits undecided.

The parties were permitted to proceed with the suit, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.

The Court stated that it had expressed no opinion on the merits.