Article 227 cannot reappreciate facts or disturb concurrent injunction findings absent patent perversity or jurisdictional error.

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning land measuring 0.82 hectare comprised in Khasra Nos. 149/1 and 150/1 at Village Bhurka, District Raipur. He claimed title and possession under a registered sale deed executed by Respondent No. 1 on 25 July 2017, followed by mutation in the revenue records

The petitioner subsequently learned that Respondent No. 1 had mortgaged the property with Bank of Baroda in 2014, prior to the sale deed. After the loan account was declared non-performing, the bank initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The property was auctioned on 1 December 2025, and a sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser, Yogesh Kela, on 17 February 2026

The petitioner sought temporary protection of his possession under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court rejected the application on 5 December 2025, finding no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury. The appellate court affirmed that order on 27 August 2026. The petitioner therefore invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution

Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury warranting temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC?

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with the concurrent orders of the trial and appellate courts refusing temporary injunction?

The court applied the principles governing temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, namely that the applicant must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

It further applied the restricted scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Relying principally on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, and the principles drawn from Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, Mani Nariman Daruwala v. Phiroz N. Bhatena, and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, the court held that Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate, and may be exercised only to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction or to correct patent perversity, gross failure of justice, or violation of natural justice. Mere errors of fact or law, or the availability of another possible view, do not justify interference

The court found that the mortgage in favour of the bank was created in 2014, before the petitioner’s purchase in 2017. Although the petitioner relied on his registered sale deed and mutation, the effect and validity of that transaction in the context of the prior mortgage required determination on evidence at trial and could not, at the interlocutory stage, establish a superior prima facie right

The subsequent auction of the property and issuance of a sale certificate further weakened the petitioner’s claim for interim protection. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate irreparable injury incapable of compensation in money, and the balance of convenience did not favour him

Since both subordinate courts had considered the relevant injunction principles and recorded reasoned findings, the High Court held that there was no jurisdictional error, perversity, or gross failure of justice warranting intervention under Article 227

The petition under Article 227 was accordingly dismissed, and the orders dated 5 December 2025 and 27 August 2026 were left undisturbed