Trial court must prioritize expeditious final adjudication of temporary injunction applications over transitory ad interim orders.

The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order dated 29.05.2026 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Civil Case No. 248/2026.

The impugned order refused the appellant’s request for ad interim protection while the substantive application for temporary injunction remained pending adjudication.

The appellant approached the High Court seeking relief against this refusal, while the respondents argued that no prima facie case existed in the appellant's favor to warrant such protection.

1. Whether the High Court should intervene in a challenge against an ad interim order when the main temporary injunction application is still pending before the trial court.

2. Whether the trial court is required to decide temporary injunction applications within a specific timeframe following the principles of judicial prudence.

The Court applied the principles governing Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically focusing on the three foundational pillars for granting an injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

The Court emphasized the doctrine of judicial restraint at interlocutory stages to avoid prejudicing the main suit.

It further highlighted the procedural distinction between ad interim orders (temporary/transitory) and temporary injunctions (pendente lite).

The High Court declined to engage with the merits of the factual or legal controversy, reasoning that an elaborate discussion could inadvertently influence the trial court’s final decision on the pending injunction application.

The Court observed that because the trial court had not yet comprehensively examined the three vital ingredients—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—it would be improper for the appellate court to preempt that determination.

Justice Farjand Ali noted that ad interim orders are intended only for exceptional circumstances until a full hearing can occur; once pleadings are complete, the priority must be the final disposal of the temporary injunction application itself to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

Consequently, the Court found it more appropriate to mandate a time-bound disposal by the trial court rather than adjudicating the merits of the interim refusal.

To preserve the subject matter in the interim, the Court ordered both parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit property and prohibited the creation of third-party interests until 20.07.2026.

The application for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was also disposed of, granting the appellant liberty to move the same before the trial court.