Inconsistent findings on injunction factors warrant fresh consideration of the temporary injunction application.

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1140/2022 seeking a permanent injunction concerning a vacant property and moved for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The trial court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favour, and greater hardship to the plaintiff, but granted an order of status quo instead of an injunction.

The plaintiff appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

In the appeal, the parties disputed whether the suit property corresponded with the property in an earlier suit, mortgage documents, and bank auction records; some supporting materials, including the earlier plaint and a commissioner’s report, had not been before the trial court.

1. Whether the trial court’s order granting status quo, despite its findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and comparative hardship, required reconsideration.

2. Whether the application for temporary injunction should be remitted for fresh consideration after the parties were given an opportunity to place relevant materials and make further submissions.

The appeal arose under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, which provides for an appeal from specified orders concerning temporary injunctions.

The application before the trial court was under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, governing temporary injunctions and the court’s inherent powers.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not finally determine the substantive requirements for granting an injunction; it directs fresh consideration of the application on the relevant materials.

The High Court noted an apparent inconsistency in the trial court’s reasoning: it had found the key considerations in the plaintiff’s favour, yet concluded that status quo would cause neither party hardship and substituted that order for an injunction.

However, the property’s identity and the asserted effect of the earlier judgment remained disputed, and material documents had not been considered by the trial court.

The Court therefore considered it appropriate to remit the application for fresh decision on a fuller record, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The trial court was directed to decide the application within two months of receiving the High Court’s order; the parties were directed to cooperate, and the High Court expressly left the merits open.