Article 227 permits no interference with concurrent interim-injunction findings absent perversity or material infirmity.

The plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction concerning CTS No. 2806, corresponding to part of R.S. No. 57/1E, claiming possession through registered lease deeds executed in 1943 and 1946.

The defendants claimed leasehold rights under a 2017 deed executed by the heirs of the original lessee and relied on CTS records.

The trial court granted temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, finding a prima facie case and balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favour; the appellate court affirmed.

The defendants challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The respondents did not appear in the writ petition.

1. Whether the courts below erred in granting temporary injunction despite the parties’ competing claims to leasehold rights and possession, and the defendants’ reliance on CTS records.

2. Whether the concurrent interlocutory orders disclosed an error warranting interference under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC govern the grant of temporary injunctions. The applicant must establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience; the court may also consider the comparative hardship likely to result from granting or refusing relief.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction and may interfere where the subordinate court’s exercise of discretion warrants correction.

No precedent was cited in the order.

The courts below considered the parties’ competing documentary claims: the plaintiff relied on the older registered lease deeds and revenue entries, while the defendants relied on a later lease deed and CTS records.

The trial court found that the effect of the earlier lease and the parties’ actual possession required a full trial, but held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured protection in the meantime.

The High Court found no perversity or infirmity in the concurrent reasoning and, applying the limited scope of Article 227, declined to reweigh the interlocutory evidence.

It requested the trial court to expedite the suit and decide it on its merits, independently of observations made in the interlocutory proceedings.