TOJO ABRAHAM Vs. ROY ANTHONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff in O.S.No.4/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gundlupet, is directed against the impugned order dated 20.05.2021, whereby the trial Court (Vacation Court) declined to pass any exparte interim order in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on the application I.A.No.1 filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction and made over the entire suit along with the documents to the regular Court after re-opening of the Courts after summer vacation.

(2.) In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Appeal and referring to the various documents produced by the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the grievance of the appellant that despite not disposing of I.A.No.1 and not passing any orders on the same and consequently directing the regular Court to consider and pass orders on the application, I.A.No.1, the vacation Court committed an error of law and jurisdiction in making observations and rendering findings on merits of the contentions of the appellant and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice and has caused prejudice to the claims of the appellant in so far as the application, I.A.No.1 filed for temporary injunction is concerned.

(3.) I find considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the impugned order will clearly indicate that despite specifically observing at paragraph 22 of the impugned order that regular Court is at liberty to dispose off the suit and interim application without prejudice to the discussion made in the impugned order, the trial Court clearly misdirected itself fell in error in passing a detailed order on merits of the claim of the appellant, which is not permissible in law.