Trial Court Directed to Dispose of the Pending Suit Within Four Months

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 510 of 2019 seeking specific performance and related interim reliefs, including security and injunctions concerning the suit properties.

The trial court closed the interim applications after the defendants gave undertakings, including that they would not alienate the suit properties.

The plaintiff later sought to reopen three applications to advance arguments; the trial court dismissed those applications, prompting these Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.

At the High Court hearing, the suit was at trial stage, and the defendants’ application to file an additional written statement was pending.

Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s applications to reopen the interim applications required interference under Article 227.

Whether, instead of addressing the merits of the reopening applications, the High Court should direct an expedited disposal of the 2019 suit.

The petitions invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The judgment cites no statute beyond Article 227, precedent, or specific legal test governing reopening of the applications. It does not determine the merits of the parties’ claims or the propriety of the trial court’s orders; it directs the trial court to decide the suit within a fixed period while leaving the parties free to raise their grounds before that court.

The High Court noted that the defendants had given undertakings concerning the suit properties, that the suit was already at the trial stage, and that these revision petitions had been pending since 2023.

In those circumstances, it considered a time-bound disposal of the suit more appropriate than adjudicating the merits of the reopening applications. It left all substantive grounds open for consideration by the trial court.

The parties may raise all grounds before the trial court on their merits and in accordance with law. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.