Madras HC Dismisses Property-Alienation Injunction Appeal As Infructuous After Trial Court Rejects Suit Plaint

The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 339 of 2022, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, obtained an interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property pending disposal of the suit.

The defendants appealed against that order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

Before the appeal was heard, the plaint was rejected by the Trial Court following the defendants’ successful petition under Article 227; the plaintiffs’ challenge to that decision by SLP was pending before the Supreme Court.

The appellants’ counsel submitted that the appeal had become infructuous.

The appeal was brought under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, which provides for an appeal from specified orders granting or refusing an injunction.

Because the plaint had been rejected and no suit was pending, the interim order granted in that suit had merged with the suit; accordingly, the appeal against that interim order was technically infructuous.

The Court recorded that the plaint had been rejected by the Trial Court after a petition under Article 227 was allowed, and that the plaintiffs’ SLP was pending.

As no suit was then pending, the interim injunction could no longer operate independently of the suit.

The Court therefore treated the appeal as infructuous, without examining the merits of the injunction or the parties’ underlying claims.

The Court made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.