A temporary injunction requires prima facie identification of the disputed property.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of property under a registered sale deed and alleged that the defendants had encroached on part of it and were attempting to encroach on a further portion, identified as the “C” schedule property.

She sought mandatory and permanent injunctions and, pending trial, an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The trial court dismissed her application and allowed the defendants’ application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, vacating the interim injunction.

The plaintiff appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The High Court heard the appeals together because they involved the same parties and common issues.

1. Whether the trial court’s common order dismissing the plaintiff’s injunction application and vacating the interim injunction warranted appellate interference

2. Whether the plaintiff had established a sufficient basis for interim protection over the “C” schedule property, including a prima facie case and identification of the property

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, interim injunction relief requires consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the irreparable hardship likely to be caused to either party.

The applicant must establish the identity and description of the property and provide material supporting the alleged encroachment or interference.

An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court’s discretionary order absent illegality or perversity.

The appeals were brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC; the defendants’ application to vacate the interim order was under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.

The plaintiff’s sale deed was not sufficient at the interim stage to resolve the disputed identity and boundaries of the “B” and “C” schedule properties.

The alleged encroachment and the defendants’ contention that the “C” schedule area was a public road used for access required determination at trial.

The High Court therefore considered the trial court justified in finding that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case or sufficiently identified the property for interim relief.

The Court also noted that the plaintiff had subsequently erected a compound wall blocking the disputed area, and declined to disturb the order in light of that changed circumstance.

Any application concerning demolition of the wall was left for the trial court to decide independently.

It made no observation on the merits of the suit and directed that any application concerning demolition of the wall be decided by the trial court on its own merits and in accordance with law.