Interim injunction must preserve suit property pending adjudication where the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case.

The petitioner-plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 292 of 2021 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the B1 Schedule property, being Plot No. 853.

He also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), which was refused by the Trial Court on 16 June 2021.

The plaintiff preferred Misc. Appeal No. 56 of 2021 and sought interim protection against construction on the disputed property.

On 31 July 2021, the First Appellate Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from carrying out construction without conversion of the land, permission from the local Panchayat, and leaving 0.90 metres from the boundary line.

The First Appellate Court subsequently dismissed the miscellaneous appeal, holding that the Trial Court had rightly refused ad interim relief and that both parties should be heard before passing an order.

The defendant had entered appearance but did not file pleadings or advance oral submissions despite opportunities.

During the revisional proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court also granted interim protection on 22 January 2025, recording the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the possibility of irreparable injury.

The Trial Court’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC remained undecided.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court erred in dismissing the miscellaneous appeal and refusing interim protection solely on the ground that the defendant had not been heard, despite the defendant having been served and afforded opportunities to participate.

2. Whether the petitioner had established sufficient grounds for preservation of the disputed property by demonstrating a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and apprehension of irreparable injury pending adjudication of the injunction application.

3. Whether the ad interim injunction restraining further construction should continue until the Trial Court decides the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The Court applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, under which temporary injunction may be granted where the applicant establishes a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour, and the likelihood of irreparable injury if protection is denied.

The Court also exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct the First Appellate Court’s failure to properly assess the interim-injunction question.

It further referred to the principle recognised in AIR 1965 Cal 148 that a neighbour may sue for an injunction where the defendant’s construction allegedly violates statutory municipal or building requirements.

An interim order cannot be rejected merely by making general observations about the alleged misuse of injunctions; there must be a specific finding that the order was procured by fraud, misleading facts, or other legally relevant misconduct.

The Court found that the petitioner had twice demonstrated a prima facie basis for interim protection: first before the First Appellate Court on 31 July 2021 and again before the High Court during the revision.

The earlier injunction was based on the petitioner’s asserted title and interest, the alleged unauthorised construction, and the risk of irreparable injury to the property.

The First Appellate Court’s general observation that ad interim injunctions are frequently procured by misleading courts did not constitute a finding that the petitioner had practised fraud or misled the Court in the present case.

Since the defendant had been served, entered appearance, and was given opportunities but failed to file pleadings or make submissions, the absence of a contested hearing did not justify rejecting protection altogether.

As the substantive injunction application was still pending before the Trial Court, preservation of the property was necessary to prevent the proceedings from being defeated by further construction.

The injunction granted by the First Appellate Court on 31 July 2021, and the corresponding protection granted by the High Court, was directed to remain operative until the Trial Court disposes of the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

The defendant was restrained from carrying out further construction on the B1 Schedule property, Plot No. 853, without conversion of the land, permission from the local Panchayat, and leaving 0.90 metres from the boundary line.

CO 1707 of 2024 was accordingly disposed of.