(Prayer: This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1(R) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.)

Oral Judgment

1. Sri.M.R.Rajagopal, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.N.S.Sriraj Gowda, for the appellant and Sri. Vigneshwara S.Shastry, Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.R.S.Subrahmanya Kaushik, for caveator/ respondents 1 to 5, appeared in person.

2. The appeal is filed by defendant No.14 to set aside the order dated the sixth of November 2025, passed by the Court of XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6523/2025.

3. For convenience's sake, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking certain reliefs. They also filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, restraining defendant No.14 from alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule property in favor of third parties till the disposal of the suit. Defendant No.14 contested the application. The Trial Court vide order dated the sixth of November 2025, passed the status quo order. Under these circumstances, defendant No.14 has filed this appeal on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of appeal.

5. Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

6. The following point arises for consideration.

          Was the Trial Court legally justified in passing a status quo order in response to an application for a temporary injunction?

7. The facts are already clear. No further detail is required. The dispute relates to the interim injunction order passed by the Trial Court in response to the application filed by the plaintiffs. The true copy of the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiffs is furnished along with the appeal, and the same has been perused with care. The plaintiffs sought a restraint order against defendant No.14 from alienating or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule property in favour of third parties. While the plaintiffs sought a restraint order against Defendant No.14 from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property, the Trial Court passed an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo. Prima facie, it appears that as of the date of passing of the impugned order, nothing was shown by either party as to the present status of the property to maintain the status quo. The Trial Court passes a status quo order without verifying the current status. The law is well settled that a "Status Quo" Order without defining the current state of affairs is vague, unworkable, and creates doubt and ambiguity. The Trial Court adopted a 'short-cut method' of passing an order of status quo without determining the factual matrix of the case, which amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The status quo order passed by the Trial Court on an injunction application is considered legally fragile and is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the status quo order passed by the Trial Court is legally tenuous and unsustainable. Consequently, the matter warrants a remand for fresh consideration. In light of the legal infirmities, the Trial Court's status quo order cannot stand. A remand is necessary to decide the injunction application afresh in accordance with the law.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated:06.11.2025 passed by XXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.6523/2025 is set aside.

9. Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and defendant No.14 jointly submitted that they would appear before the Trial Court to address arguments on the injunction application on the 18th day of February 2026. Taking note of the said submission, counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendant No.14 are permitted to address their arguments on the 18th day of February 2026. All the contentions of the plaintiffs and of defendant No.14 are left open. The Trial Court is to pass a suitable order on the application afresh in accordance with the law.

10. As a result, the appeal is allowed.