Article 227 does not warrant interference with reasoned temporary-injunction orders absent perversity.

The petitioners were defendants in a permanent-injunction suit brought by the respondents. The trial court granted the plaintiffs’ temporary-injunction application and dismissed the defendants’ application.

The defendants’ appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC was dismissed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Haridwar. The defendants then challenged the concurrent orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

As the two petitions raised common questions of law and fact, they were heard and decided together; the Court considered the facts of WPMS No. 376 of 2022.

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the concurrent orders granting temporary injunction to the plaintiffs and refusing it to the defendants.

2. Whether the courts below properly considered the relevant requirements for temporary injunction, including prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC provides for an appeal against specified orders concerning injunctions, while Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction, which is not ordinarily used to re-evaluate a reasoned discretionary order.

The grant or refusal of temporary injunction is discretionary and depends on consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Under Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., an appellate court should not substitute its discretion for that of the court of first instance unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or settled principles were ignored; a different view on the same material alone does not warrant interference.

The judgment also relies on Esha Ekta Apartments CHS Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai, which reiterates that a reasoned exercise of discretion based on objective consideration of the material should not be disturbed merely because another view is possible, and on Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani.

The trial court had considered the circumstances and the three established requirements for temporary injunction, and concluded that the petitioners had not established a prima facie case.

The appellate court had also addressed the relevant aspects in detail. Applying the principles governing review of discretionary injunction orders, the High Court found no basis to conclude that the courts below had acted arbitrarily or ignored settled principles.

It therefore held that there was no ground for supervisory interference with their concurrent orders.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.