An interim injunction cannot be granted when it would effectively decree the suit.

The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, alleging that he owned and possessed the suit property and that the respondent was interfering with that possession.

He sought temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The Trial Court dismissed the application, and the First Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

The petitioner then challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending, among other things, that the respondent’s vendor had tampered with the approved layout plan to create additional plots.

1. Whether the concurrent refusal of temporary injunction disclosed an error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to temporary injunction where the interim relief sought was similar to the permanent injunction claimed in the suit.

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, temporary injunction is assessed by considering whether the applicant has established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable loss.

At this stage, the court should not conduct a mini-trial; disputed questions such as the legality of a modified layout are for determination at trial.

The court also stated that interim relief should not be granted where it is similar to the final relief sought and would effectively decree the suit.

No precedent was cited in the judgment.

The alleged tampering with the layout plan raised matters that the court considered appropriate for determination at trial, rather than at the temporary-injunction stage.

The petitioner’s suit sought a permanent injunction, while the requested interim order was similar in substance; granting it would therefore amount to decreeing the suit before trial.

In light of that reasoning and the concurrent findings of the courts below, the High Court found no error warranting interference.

The High Court left undisturbed the orders rejecting the petitioner’s application for temporary injunction and dismissing the appeal.