Article 227 jurisdiction does not permit interference with non-perverse interim injunction orders.

Respondents 1 and 2 sued for declaration of ownership and succession, partition, and related relief concerning several properties, including land at Mouza Kanganhall.

They also sought demolition of structures allegedly raised by the petitioner in breach of a status quo order.

The petitioner maintained that the parties had privately partitioned the property and settled their disputes in January 2022, after which construction was undertaken by several parties.

The trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit property; the appellate court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 227, arguing, among other things, that the settlement and subsequent construction altered the circumstances and that he should be permitted to complete the roof/slab.

Whether the trial court’s status quo order, as upheld by the appellate court, disclosed a jurisdictional error or other ground warranting interference under Article 227.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to complete the roof/slab, including on an undertaking to demolish the construction if unsuccessful in the suit.

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction: interference is limited to cases involving grave dereliction of duty, flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, or findings unsupported by evidence or so perverse that no reasonable court could reach them; it does not permit routine reappreciation of facts.

An order granting or refusing temporary injunctive relief is discretionary and ordinarily should not be disturbed unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or in disregard of settled principles.

Permission to construct during pending litigation, even subject to an undertaking to demolish, is not an absolute right and depends on the facts of the case.

The courts below treated the alleged private partition, ownership, inheritance, and construction as disputed matters requiring determination at trial.

The trial court also considered that the petitioner’s application seeking partition appeared inconsistent with his pleaded position that partition had already occurred, and that allegations of construction in breach of the status quo order had led to contempt proceedings.

The High Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the courts’ exercise of discretion and declined, under Article 227, to reweigh the disputed facts.

Given the alleged breach of the existing order, it also declined to permit further construction merely on the petitioner’s proposed undertaking.

It dismissed the petition, leaving in place the trial court’s status quo direction as upheld by the appellate court, and refused permission to complete the roof/slab.