Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned senior counsel for the respondent, we observe
that in a case where an appeal is filed by being
aggrieved by the rejection of a plaint in exercise of
powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court ought
not to have granted an order of temporary injunction. We
say so for the reason that the plaint itself has been
rejected by the Commercial Court and the correctness or
otherwise of the said rejection is a matter at large
before the High Court. When the plaint itself has been
rejected, it cannot be said that the appeal filed against
such an order is a continuation of a suit. It may be that
in the commercial suit the respondent herein had the
benefit of an interim injunction, but once the plaint has
been rejected by the trial court i.e. the Commercial
Court, in the instant case, until it is revived /
restored, an order of temporary injunction cannot operate
against the defendant in the suit, who is the respondent
in the appeal filed against the rejection of the plaint.
In other words, it is necessary that there ought to be a
subsisting plaint in order to seek an order of temporary
injunction. {Para 5}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).7235/2025
IEEE MUMBAI SECTION WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs GLOBAL IEEE INSTITUTE FOR ENGINEERS
Dated: May 27, 2025.
Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned senior counsel for the respondent, at length.
3. The impugned order dated 15.04.2025 is passed on
I.A.NO.1 of 2025 in COMAP NO.181 of 2025 by the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The said appeal is filed
assailing the order passed by the LXXXIV Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Commercial Court, Bengaluru on
I.A.NO.4 of 2024 in Commercial Original Suit No.906 of
2024. The said application (IA NO.4 of 2024) was filed
under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (“CPC” for short) seeking rejection of the plaint.
By the order dated 12.03.2025, the plaint was rejected by
the Commercial Court.
4. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein has filed
COMAP No.181 of 2025. Along with the said appeal, an
application (IA NO.1 of 2025) was filed by the respondent
herein seeking temporary injunction against the appellant
herein. By the impugned order dated 15.04.2025, the
temporary injunction has been granted. The appeal is
still at large and pending consideration before the High
Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned senior counsel for the respondent, we observe
that in a case where an appeal is filed by being
aggrieved by the rejection of a plaint in exercise of
powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the High Court ought
not to have granted an order of temporary injunction. We
say so for the reason that the plaint itself has been
rejected by the Commercial Court and the correctness or
otherwise of the said rejection is a matter at large
before the High Court. When the plaint itself has been
rejected, it cannot be said that the appeal filed against
such an order is a continuation of a suit. It may be that
in the commercial suit the respondent herein had the
benefit of an interim injunction, but once the plaint has
been rejected by the trial court i.e. the Commercial
Court, in the instant case, until it is revived /
restored, an order of temporary injunction cannot operate
against the defendant in the suit, who is the respondent
in the appeal filed against the rejection of the plaint.
In other words, it is necessary that there ought to be a
subsisting plaint in order to seek an order of temporary
injunction.
6. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned
order dated 15.04.2025 passed on I.A.NO.1 of 2025 in
COMAP NO.181 of 2025 by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru. We request the High Court to dispose of COMAP
NO.181 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible and
preferably on or before 30.06.2025.
7. It is needless to observe that the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties would cooperate with
the High Court for expeditious disposal of the COMAP
No.181 of 2025.
8. We clarify that we have not said anything on the
merits of the matter.
9. Appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
............................., J
[B. V. NAGARATHNA]
............................., J
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]
NEW DELHI
May 27, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment