The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that trial courts cannot adjourn applications seeking urgent ad-interim injunctions for months after issuing urgent notice, observing that such a practice defeats the very purpose of seeking interim protection and undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system.
Justice Subba Reddy Satti was dealing with a civil revision petition challenging a trial court’s docket order which, while issuing urgent notice in an injunction application, adjourned the matter by over two months. The petitioner contended that the prolonged adjournment rendered the request for urgent interim relief meaningless.
The High Court held that the object of granting an ad-interim injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and prevent irreparable injury pending adjudication. If an injunction application is adjourned beyond a reasonable period, the very purpose of filing it stands frustrated. The Court emphasised that while the grant of injunction depends on the well-settled tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, applications seeking urgent protection must nevertheless be considered expeditiously.
Criticising the practice of mechanically posting such applications to distant dates, the Court observed that many trial courts, for reasons best known, adjourn interlocutory applications to long dates, resulting in injustice to litigants. It noted that where a court directs issuance of urgent notice and requires payment of enhanced process fee, adjourning the matter for an extended period is legally unjustifiable.
The High Court ruled that whenever urgent notice is ordered in an injunction application, the matter should ordinarily be posted within 10 to 15 days, and in appropriate cases even within seven days, depending on the urgency involved. It categorically held that such applications should not be adjourned beyond 15 days, as doing so would defeat the object of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the present case, the Court found the trial court’s order adjourning the injunction application by more than two months to be illegal and irregular. It directed the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, to advance the hearing of the application suo motu immediately after the reopening of courts following the summer vacation and dispose of it in accordance with law.
Also Read Ambiguities In Arbitration Clauses: A Case For Pre-Arbitral Mediation
The Court also directed the Registrar (Judicial) to circulate the order, along with previously issued guidelines on disposal of injunction applications, to all District Heads for dissemination among judicial officers across the State and to the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy, with a view to ensuring uniform compliance and preventing unnecessary delays in urgent interlocutory matters.
