Article 227 does not permit interference with concurrent injunction orders absent perversity or grave injustice.

The petitioner, claiming to represent Hanuman Temple, asserted that land comprising Khasra Nos. 1630 and 1631, measuring 3.35 acres, belonged to the temple.

He challenged an alleged 1957 transfer made without court permission and disputed the private respondents’ claims under later registered sale and gift deeds and the corresponding revenue entries.

He also objected to proposed compensation disbursement for land acquired for a railway underbridge project.

The Civil Judge rejected his application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; the Additional District Judge dismissed his appeal.

The petitioner then invoked Article 227.

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

Whether the courts below committed an error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, temporary injunction requires the cumulative establishment of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury; a prima facie case alone is insufficient (Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719).

Grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction is a discretionary determination, and interference is unwarranted merely because another view is possible; the discretion must be shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or contrary to settled principles (Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727).

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction is limited and is not an appellate jurisdiction for reassessing facts; intervention is justified in cases such as jurisdictional failure, patent perversity, or manifest injustice (Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329).

A Hindu deity is a juristic person, and a worshipper with a legitimate interest may, in appropriate circumstances, protect its property (Bishwanath v. Shri Thakur Radha Ballabhji, AIR 1967 SC 1044).

Revenue entries do not, by themselves, confer title.

The competing claims involved disputed questions concerning the petitioner’s authority to represent the deity, the identity and correlation of the khasra lands, the validity and effect of the alleged 1957 transfer, and the parties’ respective titles.

Those matters could not be conclusively resolved at the interlocutory stage; the petitioner’s allegations did not, without supporting prima facie material, establish entitlement to an injunction.

As to compensation, the petitioner had to show that the proposed disbursement concerned the very land claimed and that the resulting injury could not be adequately addressed through legal remedies.

The Court found no basis to conclude that the lower courts had ignored relevant evidence or exercised their discretion perversely.

Given the limits of Article 227, it would not substitute its discretion for theirs.

The petition under Article 227 was dismissed.

The Court did not finally determine the parties’ competing title claims, which remained for adjudication by the competent civil court.