Appellate courts should ordinarily avoid stays that effectively decide injunction appeals at the outset.

The plaintiff, claiming to be the registered legal owner and trustee of the suit property, sought declarations and injunctions concerning alleged transfers of flats by syndicate members through unregistered agreements and without the plaintiff’s participation.

The Trial Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction on 20 April 2026, restraining dealings with the flats.

Defendants 4 and 5 appealed and sought an ad interim stay; the District Judge refused the stay.

They then challenged that refusal under Article 227, arguing, among other things, that the Trial Court had not recorded the reasons required by Order 39 Rule 3 CPC and that the plaintiff had suppressed a material agreement.

Whether the District Judge was justified in refusing an ad interim stay of the Trial Court’s injunction while the miscellaneous appeal remained pending.

Whether the Trial Court’s ex parte injunction was liable to be interfered with because it failed to record reasons under the proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.

Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, an interim injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury; a prima facie case means a bona fide, substantial question requiring trial, not proof of title (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh).

The proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 makes it mandatory for a court granting an injunction without notice to record why delay would defeat its object (Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi).

In an appeal concerning interim injunction, the appellate court should not substitute its discretion unless the first-instance decision is arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled principles (Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.; Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi).

Ordinarily, an appellate court should not grant an ad interim stay that effectively allows the appeal before hearing it fully.

Alleged suppression may be raised before the Trial Court under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.

Article 227 is supervisory and does not permit correction of ordinary errors where the lower court has acted within its jurisdictional parameters (Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.).

The High Court found that the Trial Judge had considered the plaintiff’s documents and recorded findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, as well as reasons why notice could lead to further transfers and defeat the suit’s object.

The appellate judge had considered those reasons and the applicable injunction principles; refusing an immediate stay was consistent with the rule against effectively allowing an interim appeal before its hearing.

The suppression allegation could be pursued under Order 39 Rule 4, and the plaintiff had been given an opportunity to respond to it in the pending appeal proceedings.

The High Court therefore found no basis for supervisory interference under Article 227.

It dismissed CO 2084 of 2026 without costs.

It requested the appellate court to dispose of the miscellaneous appeal and connected applications expeditiously, while clarifying that its observations should not influence their determination.