Restoration revives pending injunction applications, but not injunction orders absent an operative injunction at dismissal.

The suit, being Title Suit No. 18 of 2010, was instituted in 2010. An ad interim injunction dated 4 February 2010 directed the then defendants to maintain status quo regarding alienation, alteration of the nature and character of the suit property, and construction thereon; the injunction was subsequently vacated on 8 January 2013.

The suit was later dismissed for default in 2015 and restored ex parte on 9 July 2015 under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), subject to the plaintiff informing the defendants of the restoration.

By order dated 8 July 2026, the petitioner, Jakir Hossain, was added as defendant no. 8 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC.

By the same order, the Trial Court allowed the plaintiff’s applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint and the injunction application, and accepted the amended copies already filed.

The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that his caveat had been disregarded, that the amendment applications had allegedly been abandoned, and that the injunction application could not revive after dismissal of the suit and therefore a fresh injunction application was required.

The Trial Court had granted him liberty to file a written statement and written objection to the injunction application.

Whether the Trial Court’s order allowing amendment of the plaint and the injunction application, without hearing the petitioner despite his caveat, caused procedural prejudice or violated natural justice?

Whether, upon restoration of the suit under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, the pending injunction application was restored, or whether the plaintiff was required to file a fresh injunction application?

Whether acceptance of the amended plaint and amended injunction application was legally impermissible on the ground that the amendment applications had allegedly been abandoned?

The Court applied Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which permits addition of a necessary or proper party; Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which empowers the court to allow amendment of pleadings; Order IX Rule 4 CPC, under which a suit dismissed for default may be restored; and Section 151 CPC, preserving the court’s inherent powers.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, under which a party must be given a meaningful opportunity to present its case.

Restoration of a suit to its original file and number restores the pending proceedings and applications connected with the suit, but does not automatically revive an injunction order that was not in force when the suit was dismissed.

An order allowing amendment is not liable to interference where the affected party suffers no prejudice and is afforded an opportunity to respond to the amended pleadings and application.

The Court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the amendment order because, after being added as defendant no. 8, he was expressly granted the opportunity to file a written statement in relation to the plaint and a written objection to the injunction application, as well as to advance arguments before the Trial Court.

Accordingly, the requirement of audi alteram partem was satisfied notwithstanding the petitioner’s contention regarding the caveat.

On the issue of revival, the Court distinguished between revival of the pending injunction application and revival of an injunction order.

Restoration under Order IX Rule 4 CPC restored the injunction application to the suit, but no injunction automatically revived because no injunction was in force when the suit was dismissed for default.

Since the injunction application remained to be heard and the petitioner could file objections, he suffered no legal prejudice.

The Court consequently found no basis to interfere with the Trial Court’s acceptance of the amended plaint and amended injunction application.

It held that the amendment of the plaint and injunction application did not violate natural justice or prejudice the added defendant, and that restoration of the suit restored the pending injunction application without automatically reviving any injunction order.

The petitioner retained the right to file his written statement and written objection and to contest the injunction application and the suit on merits.

The civil revisional application, C.O. 142 of 2026, was accordingly rejected and disposed of; no interference with the Trial Court’s order was warranted.