Fresh interim injunction applications must be filed before the trial court, not first before the appellate court.

Plaintiff No. 1 sued claiming ownership of the suit property, challenging a 1996 power of attorney and subsequent sale deeds, and seeking a declaration that a mortgage created in favour of HDFC Bank was not binding on her and the other claimed heirs.

The Bank, defendant No. 4, applied under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a), read with Sections 94 and 151 CPC, to restrain the plaintiffs from carrying out construction on the property; the trial court dismissed the application.

By the time the appeal was considered, plaintiff No. 2 had completed construction.

The Bank also filed two applications in the High Court seeking, respectively, a deposit or bank guarantee for Rs.47,08,582 and restraint against further dealings with the property.

Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the Bank’s application to restrain construction called for appellate interference.

Whether the Bank’s applications for interim relief, filed for the first time in the High Court, could be considered there.

The Court considered Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, under which an appeal lies from specified orders concerning temporary injunctions, and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which govern temporary injunctions.

It held that an application for temporary injunction should be made before the trial court of first instance; applications seeking such relief filed for the first time before the High Court could not be considered in this appeal, though the applicant could pursue them before the trial court.

The Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s order because the construction had been completed, the Bank and defendant No. 3 were not in possession, and the parties’ competing claims to title and the validity of the transactions remained matters for trial.

The Bank’s separate requests for a deposit or restraint against dealings sought interim relief but had not first been presented to the trial court.

The Court therefore left their merits to be considered independently by that court, while noting that it could consider appropriate protection against creation of third-party rights.

The Bank was granted liberty to file its two interim applications before the trial court, which must consider them in accordance with law after hearing both parties and without being influenced by the earlier order.

Any further construction by plaintiff No. 2 was made subject to the outcome of the suit; all merits and contentions were left open.