Status Quo Must Be Maintained Pending Adjudication of the Temporary Injunction Application.

The petitioners filed O.S. No. 5923 of 2026 seeking declaration and permanent injunction concerning the Schedule-B property, and applied under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for interim protection against interference with or damage to the property and disturbance of their use and enjoyment.

On 14 August 2026, the trial court issued emergent notice, stating that the application should be considered after the defendants had an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, submitting that the defendants were using the order to obstruct a road leading to a school, causing inconvenience to students.

1. Whether interim status quo should be directed in respect of the suit schedule property pending the trial court’s decision on the petitioners’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

2. Whether the trial court should be directed to decide that interim application within a specified period.

The petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The interim application before the trial court was under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which provide for temporary injunctions and related interlocutory orders.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s order dated 6 August 2026 in SLP (C) Nos. 13310–13311 of 2024, but did not set out or derive a broader legal principle from it.

The Court’s order was a case-specific interim direction based on the prima facie material and the circumstances presented; it did not decide the merits of the injunction application.

The trial court had deferred consideration of the injunction application to allow the defendants an opportunity to be heard. In light of the petitioners’ submission that the road was being obstructed, the prima facie material, and the referenced Supreme Court order, the High Court considered interim protection appropriate while the trial court determined the application.

Rather than decide the injunction merits itself, it directed the parties to maintain status quo and required the trial court to expedite its decision.

It further directed the trial court to dispose of the application in accordance with law within two months from the date a copy of the High Court’s order was placed before it.