ORDER : 1. Heard learned senior counsel - Sri Sreevatsa on behalf of learned counsel - Sri Mahesh R.D. for petitioner. 2. The reliefs that were sought in the present petition are as under: (i) Direct the Learned XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, to forthwith consider and dispose of I.A. No.6 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking continuation of the Interim Order dated 24.11.2023 in OS 7598/23 vide Annexure-A,, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 3. This Court does not find any need to issue notice to the respondents as the only relief that is sought in the present writ petition is to direct the trial Court to dispose of I.A. No.6 in a time bound manner. 4. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 5. It is the case of petitioner that he filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in O.S. No.7598/2023 against the respondents. Alongwith the suit, an application came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an ad interim exparte order of Temporary Injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants or anybody claiming through them from telecasting/broadcasting/publishing/ disseminating/distributing anything in negative form referring to the plaintiff, which is defamatory in nature. 6. The trial Court being satisfied with the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, granted an exparte ad-interim order of Temporary Injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 58. The said order reads as under: "The defendants No.1 to 58 are hereby restrained from telecasting or broadcasting or publishing any defamatory articles/statements, damaging the reputation of the plaintiff, till next date of hearing. However, this order would not come in the way of the defendants in publishing any true and authenticated news, without making any defamatory remarks against the plaintiff. Issue order of temporary injunction, emergent notice on I.A.No.1 and suit summons to the defendants No.1 to 58, after compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of CPC, returnable by 17.01.2024." 7. However, this order would not come in the way of the defendants in publishing any true and authenticated news, without making any defamatory remarks against the plaintiff. Issue order of temporary injunction, emergent notice on I.A.No.1 and suit summons to the defendants No.1 to 58, after compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) of CPC, returnable by 17.01.2024." 7. It is the contention of learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner that from the date of granting the interim order on 24.11.2023, the trial Court extended the said interim order from time to time till 27.1.2025, on the basis of the application for extension of the interim order filed by the plaintiff on every date of hearing. It is contended that on 27.1.2025 due to inadvertence, an application for extension of interim order dated 24.11.2023 was not filed and as such, the interim order dated 24.11.2023 was not extended since 27.1.2025 till date. Pursuant to which, the respondents have again started to telecast, broadcast and publish defamatory statements against the petitioner in the social media, copies of which are produced before the Court. 8. It is contended that on 22.9.2025, the petitioner filed I.A. No.6 under section 151 of CPC seeking to continue the interim order dated 24.11.2023. The trial Court posted the said case for objections to I.A. No.6. Aggrieved by not extending the interim order till disposal of I.A. No.6, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 9. It is the contention of learned senior counsel for petitioner that due to inadvertence, an application for extension of the interim order dated 24.11.2023 was not filed on 27.1.2025, due to which the interim order was not extended. He contends that the trial Court neither discontinued the interim order nor vacated the interim order. Under such circumstances, it is contended that the interim order continues to operate till it is recalled, vacated or modified or specifically mentioned by the Court that the same is not extended. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre of Excellence in Disaster Mitigation and Management, IIT, Roorkee, District Haridwar vs. M/s S.K. Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 2234, wherein at paragraph-13 it is held as under: " 13 . In support of his contention, learned senior counsel relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre of Excellence in Disaster Mitigation and Management, IIT, Roorkee, District Haridwar vs. M/s S.K. Dynamics Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2016 SCC OnLine Utt 2234, wherein at paragraph-13 it is held as under: " 13 . On this controversy, it would be quite germane to refer the judgment of this very Court passed on 9.8.2016 in Civil Revision No.42/2016 & connected matters, wherein a number of precedents have been discussed, like Ram Abhilakh Misra v. Cane Commissioner, ARC 1998 (1) 526; Ashiq Ali v. Mohammad Shakeel, 1985 LCD 363 and Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Regional Joint Director of Education, Agra, 2001 Supreme (ALL) 33, and it was held that time bound stay orders do not cease to be effective by efflux of time. The result in law is that time bound order has the same effect as an order till further orders of the Court. In other words, it continues to operate till it is recalled, vacated or modified or specifically mentioned by the Court "not extended." 10. I am in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that once the interim order is granted by the trial Court, unless the same is vacated by the Court or a specific order is made that it is not extended, the interim order continues to operate till it is recalled, vacated or modified or specifically mentioned by the Court that the same is not extended. It is always open to the trial Court to accept the objections of the respondents/defendants and hear both sides and extend/vacate/modify the interim order. Till then, the interim order ought to have been continued. 11. However since the interim order is not extended from 27.01.2025 till this order, any action by the respondents during this period cannot be contended to disobedience of the order. 12. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER: i) The petition is allowed. ii) The trial Court shall continue the interim order granted on 24.11.2023 in O.S. No.7598/2023 till disposal of I.A. No.6 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for extension of the interim order. 12. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER: i) The petition is allowed. ii) The trial Court shall continue the interim order granted on 24.11.2023 in O.S. No.7598/2023 till disposal of I.A. No.6 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for extension of the interim order. iii) It is made clear that the petitioner/plaintiff will not have liberty to initiate any action against the respondents/defendants for disobedience of the interim order during the period of non-extension of the interim order dated 24.11.2023. iv) It is needless to state that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the application or the suit. v) It is made clear that the trial Court is also at liberty to vacate/modify the interim order on merits.