J&K HC Restores Possession Status Quo In Land Dispute, Gives Trial Court A Month To Decide Injunction

The petitioner-plaintiff sued for a declaration that a sale deed concerning land alleged to be joint and unpartitioned was void, and for injunctive relief.

On 11 August 2026, the trial court granted an ex parte status quo order regarding possession and later directed its implementation through the police.

The defendants appealed both orders. The appellate court kept the implementation order in abeyance and, on 10 October 2026, also kept the original injunction order in abeyance.

The plaintiff challenged the appellate proceedings and order, contending, among other things, that the appellate court acted without notice despite a caveat and that the ex parte order was not appealable.

Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC permits an appeal from an order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, whether the order is ex parte or made after hearing the parties.

Although appellate courts ordinarily expect parties to seek a decision or vacation of an ex parte injunction from the trial court first, there is no absolute bar to an appeal; intervention may be justified, among other circumstances, where Order XXXIX Rule 3-A is flouted, the trial court lacks jurisdiction, or the order is manifestly perverse.

In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695, the Supreme Court recognised an appeal where the trial court fails to comply with Rule 3-A’s requirement for prompt consideration of an ex parte injunction.

K. K. Puri v. A. K. Puri, AIR 1994 J&K 25, endorsed the general practice of discouraging appeals against interim ex parte orders, while recognising exceptional grounds for interference, including manifest perversity or lack of jurisdiction.

The trial court’s order of 11 August 2026 was appealable in principle, but the record did not show that the trial court had delayed deciding the injunction application, lacked jurisdiction, or made a manifestly perverse order.

The defendants had filed their written statement on 14 September 2026, but pursued appeals rather than seeking a decision on the injunction application before the trial court.

The appellate court gave no reasons for entertaining the appeal against the ex parte order, and its order was therefore unsustainable; the separate appeal against the trial court’s 2 September 2026 implementation order was also not maintainable because that order was not appealable.

The appropriate course was to have the trial court decide the injunction application promptly.

It disposed of the defendants’ appeals against the trial court’s orders dated 11 August and 2 September 2026, directing the trial court to decide the plaintiff’s injunction application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month of receiving the High Court’s order.

The 11 August ex parte order was to remain in force until that decision, but would automatically stand vacated after 30 days if the plaintiff adopted delaying tactics before the trial court.