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

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning land measuring 1.15 hectares comprised in Khasra Nos. 230 and 231 at Village Bhurka, District Raipur.

He claimed title and possession under a registered sale deed dated 15 June 2016 executed by Respondent No. 1, and stated that his name had been mutated in the revenue records.

The petitioner subsequently discovered that Respondent No. 1 had mortgaged the property with Bank of Baroda in 2014, before the alleged sale.

Following default and classification of the loan account as NPA, the bank initiated recovery proceedings before the DRT, and the property was auctioned on 1 December 2025.

A sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser, Mr. Yogesh Kela, on 17 February 2026.

The petitioner’s application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was rejected by the trial court on 5 December 2025, and the appellate court affirmed that order on 27 August 2026.

The petitioner challenged the concurrent orders 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 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC

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

The court applied the three settled requirements for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC: existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury.

It further applied the limited and supervisory scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, under which the High Court does not act as an appellate court or reappreciate evidence, and interference is justified only where the subordinate court has acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, acted with patent perversity, caused gross failure of justice, or violated basic principles of natural justice.

Relying on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil , (2010) 8 SCC 329, and the principles stated therein from Waryam Singh v. Amarnath and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai , the court held that a mere error of fact or law, or the existence of another possible view, does not warrant interference under Article 227.

The petitioner’s sale deed was executed in 2016, whereas the property had prima facie already been mortgaged to the bank in 2014. Thus, the petitioner’s claimed title was subject to a prior mortgage, and the effect and validity of the sale deed required adjudication upon evidence in the pending proceedings.

The subsequent auction had been completed and a sale certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser, further weakening the petitioner’s claim to an immediate protective injunction.

The petitioner’s assertions that he had not been informed of the mortgage and that no mortgage entry appeared in the revenue records were factual matters requiring trial and did not, at the interlocutory stage, establish a superior prima facie right.

Since the trial court and appellate court had considered the relevant injunction principles and their findings were neither perverse nor patently illegal, the High Court held that Article 227 could not be used to substitute its own assessment for their concurrent conclusions.

It held that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury in his favour, and that no jurisdictional error, patent perversity, or gross failure of justice was shown in the concurrent orders refusing temporary injunction.

The petition under Article 227 was accordingly dismissed, and the orders of the trial court and appellate court were upheld.