Article 227 jurisdiction cannot disturb concurrent injunction findings absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

The petitioner instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land measuring 0.69 hectare comprised in Khasra No. 127, Village Bhurka, District Raipur.

She claimed to have purchased the property from Respondent No. 1 through a registered sale deed dated 31 March 2017 and asserted that her name had been mutated in the revenue records and that she was in possession.

The petitioner subsequently learned that Respondent No. 1 had mortgaged the property with Respondent No. 2–Bank in 2014, prior to the sale deed.

After the loan account was declared non-performing, recovery proceedings were initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and the property was auctioned pursuant to orders passed in those proceedings.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner sought temporary protection of 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, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish a 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 of India.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to temporary injunction and protection of possession under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 31 March 2017?

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the concurrent orders of the Trial Court and appellate court refusing temporary injunction?

The Court applied the principles governing temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely, that the applicant must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury.

It further applied the settled limits of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, relying principally on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329.

Under that doctrine, Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory rather than appellate and interference is justified only where the subordinate court acts beyond its jurisdiction, fails to exercise jurisdiction, commits patent perversity, causes gross failure of justice, or violates basic principles of natural justice; the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible.

The Court also recognised that the validity and effect of the sale deed, the prior mortgage, and the auction sale were matters requiring adjudication on evidence in the pending proceedings.

The Court found that the property had been mortgaged by Respondent No. 1 to the Bank in 2014, before execution of the petitioner’s sale deed in 2017.

The petitioner’s claim that she was unaware of the mortgage and that no mortgage entry appeared in the revenue records raised factual questions requiring evidence, but did not establish a prima facie superior right at the interlocutory stage.

Since the property had also been auctioned and the auction sale had been completed, the Trial Court was justified in finding that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury.

Both subordinate courts had considered the relevant legal tests and recorded reasoned findings.

Consequently, there was no jurisdictional error, patent perversity, or gross failure of justice warranting interference under Article 227.

It held that the petitioner was not entitled to temporary injunction or protection of possession because she failed to satisfy the requirements of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.

It further held that the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and appellate court did not disclose perversity or jurisdictional error and therefore could not be disturbed in Article 227 proceedings.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties’ substantive claims concerning the sale deed, mortgage, auction, and sale certificate to be adjudicated in the pending proceedings.