Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. The prayers made in the second injunction application already found place in the first injunction application. The second injunction application was, in fact, prompted due to further cause of action having arisen. Hence, there could not arise any occasion to grant further opportunity to the defendant to file written objection thereto. The injunction application was initially fixed on February 26, 2025, which was declared as a holiday subsequently in the Trial Court, due to which 2025:CHC-AS:1031-DB a put-up petition had to be filed on February 27, 2025 for fixation of a date for hearing of the injunction application. It is submitted that the defendant no.1, who was all along participating in the suit, ought to have been more diligent in filing his written objection.

48. While deciding such issue, we cannot lose sight of the fact that no injunction was granted by the learned Trial Judge in respect of possession of the suit property, nor was such prayer made in the second injunction application filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 in the Trial Court. Thus, possession was not a determinant in the impugned order.

2025:CHC-AS:1031-DB

60. The second injunction application was merely prompted by further cause of action and can be read as a supplementary pleading to the first injunction application, more so since the prayers contained in the second injunction application were already made in the first such application and were subsumed by the prayers made in the first injunction application.

61. In fact, in the second injunction application, the prayers of the first were curtailed insofar as the possession of the plaintiff is concerned.

62. Thus, it is immaterial as to whether any further opportunity could be given to the appellant to file written objection to the second injunction application. Rather, having lost its opportunity to deal with the self- same facts as pleaded the first injunction application, such right of filing of written objection could not be reopened in the garb of granting such opportunity in respect of the second injunction application.

63. The contents of the first and the second injunction application were substantially the same insofar as the germane facts are concerned. Hence, even without the second injunction application, the prayers of the first injunction application would cover that of the second and the learned Trial Judge acted well within her jurisdiction in granting the same.