Court clarifies that interlocutory applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC can proceed despite stay of main suit, emphasizing distinction between trial and protective proceedings.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 29, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeet Purohit, addressed the often-contested issue of whether a stay on the main civil suit automatically suspends pending interlocutory applications, particularly those seeking temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The case, Badrilal v. Dhokalram and Others, arose from Civil Original Suit No. 18/2023, wherein the petitioner, Badrilal, sought partition and mandatory injunction related to certain suit land. Alongside the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed to preserve the status quo during the pendency of the litigation. The Trial Court rejected the petitioner's request to stay proceedings on the temporary injunction application following a stay order issued by the High Court on the main suit proceedings.
The petitioner challenged this order, contending that since further proceedings in the original suit were stayed by the High Court, the hearing of the temporary injunction application, being integrally connected to the suit, should also be stayed. He argued that allowing the temporary injunction application to proceed would defeat the purpose of the stay on the suit.
However, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition, underscoring a crucial legal distinction between proceedings aimed at the final adjudication of rights in the suit and interlocutory proceedings that serve to preserve the subject matter and protect the parties' interests during litigation. The Court held that:
- Proceedings under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC are interlocutory, designed to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm, and are not part of the substantive trial on merits.
- A general stay of further proceedings in the main suit does not ipso facto stay interlocutory applications unless expressly stated or necessarily implied.
- The Trial Court retains jurisdiction to entertain and decide interlocutory applications during the pendency of a stay on the main suit, provided such proceedings do not encroach upon the issues or trial on merits.
- Prior directions issued by the High Court for expeditious disposal of the temporary injunction application remain effective notwithstanding the stay on the suit.
The Court referenced a plethora of precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Madanlal Agarwal v. Kamlesh Nigam and the Supreme Court's ruling in Amita Kaushish v. Sanjay Kaushish, to emphasize that interlocutory proceedings are protective in nature and distinct from the trial itself.
Justice Purohit elaborated that interlocutory applications are akin to collateral proceedings necessary to keep the litigation alive and protect the parties' rights during the pendency of the suit. He clarified that the stay on the main suit was intended to halt the trial on merits but not to obstruct necessary protective orders such as temporary injunctions which do not prejudice the ultimate determination of rights.
The Court thus upheld the Trial Court's decision refusing to stay the temporary injunction application and dismissed the writ petition, reinforcing the principle that interlocutory reliefs serve an indispensable role in the judicial process, especially in safeguarding the status quo pending final adjudication.
This judgment provides clarity and guidance to litigants and courts on the procedural interplay between stay orders on suits and interlocutory applications, ensuring that protective measures remain available even when substantive trial proceedings are halted.
Bottom Line:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Stay of further proceedings in suit does not automatically stay hearing of pending temporary injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Interlocutory proceedings for preservation of subject matter are distinct from trial on merits - Trial Court can proceed with such application unless specific stay order or surrounding circumstances indicate otherwise.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151; Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 39
