Concurrent interim injunction orders warrant no Article 227 interference absent perversity.

The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 22 of 2025 seeking a permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

The trial court granted interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; the Subordinate Judge, Alandur, dismissed the defendants’ appeal and confirmed that order.

The defendants challenged the appellate order under Article 227, contending that the diagnostic-centre licence was in the name of another company and that the plaintiff was using their equipment.

A separate writ order had directed an inquiry into the plaintiff’s licence under the PCPNDT Act, 1994, with closure of the establishment if it lacked a valid licence.

Whether the courts below committed perversity warranting interference under Article 227 by confirming interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

Whether the defendants’ grievances concerning the plaintiff’s alleged unlicensed operation and use of the defendants’ equipment required setting aside the injunction.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC provide for interim injunctions, and Article 227 empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The Court’s stated basis for Article 227 intervention was whether the courts below had acted perversely; it found no such perversity in their orders.

The PCPNDT Act, 1994, was relevant to the separate licensing inquiry already directed in the writ proceedings.

The Court also observed that a claim concerning alleged unauthorised use of equipment could be pursued through independent proceedings for appropriate relief.

The Court treated the licensing objection as addressed, for present purposes, by the prior writ order requiring the competent authority to determine whether the plaintiff held a valid PCPNDT licence and providing for closure if it did not.

The equipment dispute was not a basis to determine the injunction revision; the defendants could pursue separate proceedings for compensation, damages, or mandatory injunction.

The Court further reasoned that any illegality in the plaintiff’s operation would attract consequences against the plaintiff, which was running the centre, rather than vicariously against the defendants merely because the licence stood in another company’s name.

Finding no perversity in the concurrent orders, it declined to interfere under Article 227.