Courts Must Consider Cogent Documentary Evidence When Deciding Temporary Injunction Applications

The plaintiff brought a bare-injunction suit concerning two adjoining sites, each measuring 3,267 square feet, and sought temporary protection under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The defendant disputed the plaintiff’s claim and asserted rights based on a power of attorney and the alleged reservation of the sites as civic amenity sites in a layout.

The trial court rejected the application, reasoning that the plaintiff’s chain of title was affected by earlier transactions and that the requirements for an injunction were not met.

On appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the High Court considered the plaintiff’s documentary materials, the defendant’s asserted claim, and the history of earlier suits.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction, or whether its order warranted appellate interference.

2. Whether the plaintiff had placed sufficient material to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable hardship for interim protection.

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, under which temporary injunctive relief depends on consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable hardship.

It also referred to Section 151 CPC, under which the application had been made, and Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, under which the appeal was brought.

The Court stated that a prima facie case does not mean prima facie title; the parties’ title is to be determined at trial.

The High Court found that the plaintiff had produced registered conveyances, revenue and municipal records, tax receipts, a layout plan, and photographs supporting his claim to the sites and possession.

It held that the trial court had failed to address those materials and had instead relied on the defendant’s asserted chain of rights, although no conveyance in favour of the defendant or its alleged predecessor was produced.

The defendant also had not established possession through the earlier proceedings, including the suit dismissed for default.

The Court concluded that the evidence warranted protection pending trial, without determining title or the ultimate merits.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 1 September 2025, and allowed the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

The defendant and those claiming through it were restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties; all contentions on the merits were left open.