Article 227 cannot disturb a reasoned appellate reversal of interim injunction absent perversity.

The petitioner, an employee of the Ujjain Development Authority, occupied a quarter allotted by the Authority. After his service was suspended, the Authority cancelled the allotment.

The trial court granted interim protection against eviction on 29 March 2025. On appeal, the lower appellate court set aside that order on 30 September 2026, taking account of matters including the petitioner’s suspension, the reported locked condition of the quarter, and evidence concerning other accommodation; it held that the relevant factual disputes should be resolved at trial.

The petitioner challenged the appellate order under Article 227, arguing, among other things, that the appellate court had wrongly concluded that he had two houses and had failed to consider the material properly.

1. Whether the lower appellate court committed a jurisdictional error or acted perversely in reversing the trial court’s interim injunction against eviction.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the appellate court’s decision on interim relief.

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interim injunctions require consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss or injury; the applicant’s conduct is also relevant (Makers Development Services Pvt. Ltd. v. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre, (2012) 1 SCC 735, quoted at para. 13).

An appeal lies from specified injunction orders under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

Article 227 is a supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction: interference is warranted in cases such as patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice, but not merely because another view is possible (Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, quoted at para. 15).

The appellate court also considered Rules 8 and 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1996 in relation to the petitioner’s suspension and occupation of the quarter.

The High Court found that the petitioner’s challenge did not fairly address the material considered by the appellate court. That court had considered the suspension, the Authority’s inspection note recording that the quarter was locked, and the evidence regarding alternative accommodation; it treated the validity of the cancellation and the accommodation issues as matters for trial.

Applying the injunction principles, the High Court concluded that the trial court had erred in finding the requirements for interim protection satisfied, and that the appellate court’s reversal disclosed no perversity, illegality, or impropriety warranting supervisory intervention.

The limited scope of Article 227 further weighed against re-evaluating the appellate court’s factual assessment.

It did not direct expedition of the trial, but left the petitioner at liberty to apply to the trial court for that relief.