ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court in Original Suit OS.No.7635/2025. 3. The present petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) To set aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 passed in O.S.No.7635/2025 by the Hon'ble XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on IA.No.1 vide Annexure - L. b) Issue a writ in nature of direction or order to allow the IA No.1 in O.S.No.7635/2025 on the file of Hon'ble XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Court Bangalore vide Annexure - J. c) To pass such other a writ or order this Hon'ble Court as deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the above case. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the trial Court, wherein the learned trial Judge has issued emergent notice on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC along with suit summons, hence for having not passed an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 5. This Court does not find the need or necessity to issue notice to the respondents/defendants for the reason that the respondents/defendants have not been served with the notice in the original suit proceedings, and they are yet to come on record. 6. It is the contention of a learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that he has filed suit against the respondents/defendants seeking the following reliefs: 1. To declare that the Sale Deed dated 19.08.2025/03.09.2025 in registering Book No.1 Document No. INR-1-04072-2025-26 stored in Central Data Cell, at the office of the Sub- Registrar, Shivajinagar (Indiranagar) Bangalore executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 is null and void and the same may be cancelled. 2. To pass judgment and decree, to grant a permanent injunction, permanently restraining the defendants, their legal heirs, agents, Henchman, assignees and GPA holders not to interfere with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 7. 3. To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 7. It is contended that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit on 31.10.2025, and the trial Court, after the plaintiff argued the matter for the grant of an ad-interim order of temporary injunction, issued notice to the defendants. The notice was issued on 07.11.2025 as per the office note. The trial Court after hearing the petitioner/plaintiff, being not satisfied with grant of an ad- interim order issued notice to the respondents/defendants returnable by 08.12.2025. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that defendant No.1 has filed a suit against defendant No.2 on 10.11.2025 in OS No.7885/2025, which is now stated before this Court, wherein he has sought the relief of vacant possession of the very same suit schedule property. 9. The short point for consideration before this Court is: 1. Whether this Court needs to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court for non-passing of the order on grant of ad-interim temporary injunction on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC? 2. If so, what order? 10. Apparently, it is seen that the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is for the relief of declaration. He has placed several materials before the Court to substantiate his arguments. So also in the affidavit annexed to the application, the plaintiff has pleaded why an ad-interim order of temporary injunction is required to be granted with regard to not interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The trial Court on consideration of the application, did not grant the interim order so also refrained from providing any reasoning and has merely issued notice on IA No.1 and issued suit summons to the defendants, aggrieved by which the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 11. The trial Court on consideration of the application, did not grant the interim order so also refrained from providing any reasoning and has merely issued notice on IA No.1 and issued suit summons to the defendants, aggrieved by which the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 11. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, it is the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the documents placed by the plaintiff before it, either along with the plaint or the averments made in the affidavit annexed to the application or any material that is produced along with the plaint to prima facie satisfy itself with regard to grant or non-grant of an ad- interim order of temporary injunction. The provisions under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 is for grant of an ad-interim temporary injunction, which specifically states under what circumstances such an injunction could be granted. 12. It is needless to mention that the trial Court is required to see that if the suit schedule property is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or wrongfully sold in execution or defendants threatens or intends to remove or dispose of the property, or there is any threat to dispose the property of the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property. Then the court may issue notice to the defendants and, upon appearance of the defendants, consider and pass suitable orders. 13. The proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 provides that the Court has the option of either issuing notice or, in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances where the Court finds that an ad -interim order of temporary injunction is required to be granted prior to issuance of notice on the ground of urgency made out and that the delay in issuance of notice would cause hardship and inconvenience and threat and possibility of dispossession to the plaintiff with regard to the suit schedule property or any damage to the suit schedule property or to the plaintiff, the Court may grant an ad-interim order of temporary injunction prior to issuance of notice. Therefore, the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 provides this extraordinary relief that could be granted prior to issuance of notice in exceptional circumstances if made out by the plaintiff. 14. Therefore, the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 provides this extraordinary relief that could be granted prior to issuance of notice in exceptional circumstances if made out by the plaintiff. 14. In the present case on hand, the trial Court has not adverted to any of these required ingredients in its impugned order. It has merely said, "Perused the materials. At this stage it appears that without hearing other side, it will not be proper to pass exparte order on the application." It is relevant to mention that this Court has been seeing time and again several orders passed by the trial Court in this manner where it is simply said that the materials are perused, and without hearing the other side, it may not be proper to pass ex-parte order on the application and issue emergent notice to the defendants along with suit summons. This may not be the proper procedure to be followed by the trial Court when an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. The trial Court is obligated and is duty bound to consider the application and the materials placed before it for either grant or rejection of the ad-interim ex-parte order. 15. If the trial Court is not inclined to grant an ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction without issuance of notice to the defendants, the trial Court is duty bound to provide necessary reasoning to that effect and say so in its order rather than merely saying issue notice and it cannot be decided prior to hearing the other side. This option is not available to the trial Court. 16. The trial Court would have to invariably advert to the contentions of the plaintiff, it may either allow it or reject it, but reasoning would have to be provided by the trial Court. It would be relevant to cite the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, (1993) 3 SCC 161 and in the case of Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1674 as to how the trial Court has to deal with such applications. 17. 17. Therefore, it is a duty cast upon the trial Court while dealing with the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to dispose of the application on the merits of it. But nevertheless, it would have to opine and provide proper reasoning. Of course, it is not required for the trial Court to conduct a mini trial while granting or rejecting the application for the grant of an ad-interim ex-parte injunction. Nevertheless, the trial Court would have to provide reasoning either way, whether it allows or rejects the application for grant of an ad-interim temporary injunction or non grant of an ad-interim temporary injunction. Under the circumstances in the present case, it is seen that the trial Court has not discussed any averments or the contentions of the plaintiff while passing the impugned order, except for merely issuing notice to the defendants. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and not in accordance with law. 18. In the present case on hand, on the basis of averments made by the plaintiff, it is seen that the plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by deceased father in favour of defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is to be declared as null and void, which is executed on the basis of GPA issued by the deceased father of the plaintiff. 19. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which is a commercial property, which is also relevant to see pursuant to issuance of notice; trial Court had given a date on 06.11.2025 for the order on IA.No.1 and IA.No.2 and issued notice on 06.11.2025 to the defendants by giving next date of hearing as 08.12.2025. The defendant No.1 has filed a suit against the defendant No.2 on 10.11.2025 for the relief of possession, which is now brought to the notice of this Court. 20. Therefore, at this stage, it appears that the defendant No.1 is not in possession and is seeking possession from defendant No.2. Therefore, under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the parties to maintain the status quo till the application is decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. 21. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER: 1. Therefore, under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the parties to maintain the status quo till the application is decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. 21. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER: 1. The petition is disposed of. 2. Parties to the proceedings shall maintain the status quo with regard to suit schedule property till the next date of hearing. 3. Trial Court shall deal with the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC upon appearance of the defendants in the matter, even prior to that if need arises and if it is so argued by the plaintiff and while doing so, the trial Court shall follow the observations passed as opined by this Court in this petition with regard to providing proper reasoning and pass the orders. 4. It is needless to mention that this order is passed solely on the ground of the submissions made before this Court with regard to the possession being with the plaintiff and subsequent proceedings initiated by defendant No.1 against defendant No.2. 5. The trial Court shall dispose of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC without being influenced by the order passed by this Court and on its own merits, and submissions so made by the parties to the proceedings.