Interim injunction restraining construction abutting adjoining property upheld on prima facie grounds.

The plaintiffs, owners of Schedule ‘A’ property, sued their adjoining neighbours, the defendants and owners of Schedule ‘B’ property, seeking a permanent injunction against further construction and a mandatory injunction to remove a pillar allegedly built abutting their property.

The trial court allowed the plaintiffs’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants from carrying out further construction touching the eastern wall of Schedule ‘A’ property until disposal of the suit.

The defendants appealed, contending, among other things, that the construction complied with applicable setback rules and that the property’s ‘B’-khata status did not prevent construction; the plaintiffs maintained that construction was proceeding without a setback or sanctioned plan.

The defendants also submitted an undertaking concerning khata conversion and a subsequent application for plan sanction.

1. Whether the trial court’s order granting temporary injunction called for interference in appeal.

2. Whether the defendants’ construction complied with applicable statutory requirements; the High Court left this question for determination at trial.

The appeal was brought under Section 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against an order granting an injunction.

Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, temporary injunctive relief requires consideration of whether the applicant has established a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience favours the applicant, and which party would suffer greater hardship if relief is refused.

The judgment cites no judicial precedents and does not determine the merits of the parties’ competing claims concerning building-rule compliance.

The High Court considered the trial court’s assessment alongside the materials and photographs, which showed construction in Schedule ‘B’ property touching the eastern side of Schedule ‘A’ property.

It noted that the construction was incomplete when the trial court made its order, although the photographs before the High Court showed that a wall had subsequently been built up to the first floor.

The trial court had found a prima facie case, a favourable balance of convenience, and a risk of irreparable injury and hardship to the plaintiffs if construction continued.

The High Court declined to decide whether the construction complied with statutory requirements, leaving that issue to the trial court, and found no illegality or perversity warranting appellate interference.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were held not to survive for consideration.