An order merely issuing notice on an injunction application does not warrant Article 227 interference.

Petitioner No. 1 claimed ownership of agricultural land under a registered sale deed and asserted that a road in Survey No. 32/A provided access to it; the petitioners alleged that the respondents proposed to obstruct that access by constructing a compound wall.

They filed O.S. No. 100/2023 and sought a temporary injunction through I.A. No. 1. The Trial Court directed issuance of emergent notice on the application and suit summons, without deciding the injunction application on its merits.

The petitioners challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order directing issuance of notice on I.A. No. 1, without determining the application on its merits, warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction, but the High Court will not interfere merely because a Trial Court has issued notice on an interlocutory application where the order neither adjudicates the parties’ rights nor determines the application’s merits.

The judgment cites no statutory provision governing temporary injunctions or precedent; it proceeds on the limited nature of the impugned order and the absence of an adverse determination.

The Trial Court had only directed notice and summons; it had neither allowed nor rejected the injunction application and had made no finding on the claimed road, right of access, or proposed construction.

Those matters remained for the Trial Court to consider when deciding I.A. No. 1. As the impugned order caused no prejudice or adverse determination, the High Court found no basis for supervisory interference.

It directed the Trial Court to consider the application in accordance with law after affording the concerned parties a reasonable opportunity, while clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the rival claims.