Interim injunction is unwarranted where the applicant admits the property is in the opponent’s possession.

The petitioners were the defendants in a 2013 suit seeking declarations of title to land and that a gift deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was not binding on the plaintiff.

The defendants filed a written statement with a counterclaim concerning scheduled properties.

In 2023, they sought an injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC over another property. The Trial Court made an interim status quo order absolute.

On the plaintiffs’ appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the First Appellate Court set aside that order, finding that the property described in the injunction application did not correspond with the property in either the plaint or the counterclaim.

The defendants challenged the appellate order under Article 227. At the hearing, their counsel stated that the property covered by the injunction application was in the plaintiffs’ possession and that the plaintiffs had constructed a superstructure on it.

1. Whether the defendants’ challenge to the appellate order setting aside the status quo order required further adjudication when they acknowledged that the property for which they sought an injunction was in the plaintiffs’ possession.

2. Whether the pending suit should proceed to trial without being influenced by observations in the interlocutory orders or the revision proceedings.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC govern applications for temporary injunctions, while an appeal from an order granting or refusing such relief lies under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

Interim injunctions and status quo orders serve to balance the parties’ rights and prevent irreversible legal injury; where the party seeking relief accepts that the subject property is already in the opposing party’s possession, the practical basis for such interim relief may no longer arise.

In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court left the merits of the underlying suit open for decision by the Trial Court.

The First Appellate Court had set aside the Trial Court’s status quo order after finding that the property described in the injunction application did not match the land described in the plaint or counterclaim.

More importantly, the defendants’ counsel acknowledged that the property covered by the application was in the plaintiffs’ possession and that they had built a superstructure there. In those circumstances, the High Court considered that an injunction in the defendants’ favour did not arise and that further consideration of the status quo order would serve no practical purpose.

The Court therefore closed the revision without deciding the underlying property disputes, and directed the Trial Court to determine the suit independently of the interlocutory observations.

The Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and return a verdict, subject to any suit instituted before 18 September 2013 pending on its file; it must decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law, untrammelled by the specified interlocutory orders and observations.

The connected miscellaneous applications were also disposed of as closed, with no order as to costs.