A pending revenue appeal does not justify displacing an injunction supported by prima facie possession.

The petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 777/2023 seeking a permanent injunction concerning 29 guntas in Sy. No. 379/6, claiming that the land’s western boundary abutted a public road.

The defendant did not dispute the plaintiff’s ownership of Sy. No. 379/6 or his own ownership of Sy. Nos. 379/5+7, but disputed the location and description of the suit land.

The trial court granted an ad-interim injunction; the Senior Civil Judge partly allowed the defendant’s appeal and directed the parties to maintain status quo.

The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the appellate court was justified in modifying the trial court’s ad-interim injunction and directing the parties to maintain status quo.

2. Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie basis for interim protection, particularly as to the location and description of the suit property.

Interim injunctions are assessed by considering whether the applicant has established a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience favours relief, and whether refusal would cause irreparable loss.

The Court considered the matter in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

No particular statutory provision or precedent is expressly identified in the order.

The Court noted that ownership of the respective survey-numbered lands was undisputed; the material dispute concerned the suit property’s location and its claimed access to the public road.

The survey sketch relied on by the plaintiff corresponded with the plaint description and had been considered by the Land Records authorities, whereas the defendant’s competing sketch was found by the Deputy Director of Land Records to be non-existent or unsupported by available records; the subsequent appeal did not determine the parties’ claims on their merits.

On the material before it, the Court found a prima facie basis for the plaintiff’s possession of the land as described in the plaint and held that the appellate court should not have disturbed the trial court’s injunction merely because the defendant’s appeal before the Land Records authorities had not attained finality.

The plaintiff was restrained from creating third-party rights or altering the nature of the property, which must remain agricultural during the suit.

The trial court was directed to decide the suit independently, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations on the interim application.

The defendant was left at liberty to seek any remedy available in law before the trial court concerning access to the main road.