P&H HC Allows Finishing Work On Existing Cinema Hall Structure, Subject To Land Suit’s Outcome

In brief

The question

1. Whether the directions in the order under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC impermissibly enlarged the scope of the interim injunction dated 10 July 2025.

The court held

The revision petition was disposed of by modifying the impugned order to permit the petitioners to undertake finishing work in the existing structure, strictly subject to the final outcome of the suit.

It also directed

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the revision and would not affect the merits of the pending suit or other proceedings.

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The trial court, while granting interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, restrained the defendants from raising construction that changed the nature of the agricultural land to non-agricultural land before partition of the joint property.

¶ 3

On the plaintiffs’ application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC alleging disobedience, the trial court directed the Halqa Patwari, accompanied by local police, to inspect the property and ensure that no fresh construction was raised on specified land beyond the defendants’ existing occupied area.

¶ 4

The defendants challenged that order under Article 227, contending that it enlarged the original injunction.

¶ 1

They also asserted that they had obtained change-of-land-use permission in 2021 and had already constructed a cinema hall, with only finishing work remaining.

¶ 1–2, 5.1, 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the directions in the order under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC impermissibly enlarged the scope of the interim injunction dated 10 July 2025.

¶ 1–5

ii.2. Whether the petitioners could be permitted to complete finishing work in the existing cinema-hall structure, given the prior change-of-land-use permission and their assertion that construction was substantially complete.

¶ 6

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶ 1

The underlying interim injunction had been granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and the application alleging its disobedience was made under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC.

¶ 1, 3–4

The judgment applied these provisions to the orders and circumstances before it; it cited no precedent or separately stated broader legal test.

04Reasoning

The High Court considered the original injunction’s terms alongside the trial court’s later directions requiring the Patwari to inspect the specified land and prevent construction beyond the petitioners’ existing occupied area.

¶ 3–5

It noted the petitioners’ assertion that change-of-land-use permission had been obtained before the suit and that the cinema building was already constructed, with only finishing work outstanding.

¶ 6

In those circumstances, it modified the impugned order to permit finishing work in the existing structure, while making that permission subject to the suit’s outcome and without prejudice to the parties’ rights.

¶ 6