Priority Hearing of Interim Injunction Application Foundational to Subsequent Procedural and Secondary Applications in Civil Suit.

The petitioners filed a suit (Special Civil Suit No. 218 of 2023) along with an application for interim injunction at Exhibit 5. During the proceedings, the petitioners also filed applications at Exhibits 61, 84, and 103, as well as an amendment application.

On 15.06.2026, the Trial Court ordered that these subsequent applications be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the Exhibit 5 injunction application, following prior directions from the High Court to decide the injunction first.

The petitioners challenged this deferment and a subsequent order dated 18.06.2026 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

1. Whether the Trial Court should be directed to hear and decide the pending applications (Exhibits 61, 84, and 103) and the amendment application within a specific timeframe after the adjudication of the interim injunction application.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to oversee subordinate courts to ensure the proper administration of justice.

The court relied on the principle of procedural efficiency, balancing the requirement to comply with prior judicial directions (deciding the injunction first) with the need to ensure that ancillary applications and pleadings (amendments) are not indefinitely delayed.

The Court noted that the Trial Court had kept the ancillary applications (Exhibits 61, 84, and 103) in abeyance specifically to comply with a mandate to decide the Exhibit 5 injunction application first.

During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel did not seek a reasoned order on the merits of the stay but requested a time-bound direction for the disposal of the other applications. The respondents expressed no objection to this approach.

The Court reasoned that once the priority application (Exhibit 5) is adjudicated, there is no legal impediment to hearing the subsequent applications. The Court further emphasized that the Trial Court must decide these matters on their own merits and provide all parties an adequate opportunity to be heard without being influenced by the High Court's observations.

It further ordered that within one month of the adjudication of Exhibit 5, the Trial Court must hear and decide the applications at Exhibits 61, 84, and 103, along with any amendment applications. The petition was disposed of as not pressed, and any existing interim relief was vacated.