From the aforesaid contents it is clear and apparent that no fresh cause of action has accrued to the petitioners to file a separate injunction petition moreso, when the learned trial court vide order dated 25.08.2014 passed an order to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. Under such circumstances, in my considered opinion there was no fresh cause of action accrued to the respondents praying before the trial court for passing a fresh order under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC by the respondents. The learned appellate court failed to consider the said aspect of the matter inasmuch as when both the parties to this suit were directed to main status quo in respect of the suit property no further order could be passed until and unless there are subsequent development forcing the affected party to seek for a fresh order of injunction requiring modification of the earlier order binding the parties to the suit. As hereinabove stated there was no suppression of material facts as the subsequent application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was filed during the pendency and before disposal of the injunction application in Misc. (J) Case No. 29/2014. The order of remand even if it is allowed to stay, in my considered opinion shall bear no fruit to the respondents on the face of the order passed in Misc. (J) case No. 29/2014 by the learned trial court moreso, there is devoid of any pleading requiring urgency for modification of the earlier status quo order. Accordingly, the learned appellate court failed to apply its jurisdiction while carrying out the scrutiny of the order passed by the learned trial court. For the said reason I am constrained to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Misc. (Appeal) No. 02/2015.
