Parties remain bound by prior High Court directions governing the suit property.

The petitioner filed O.S. No. 52/2022 seeking declaration and permanent injunction concerning the suit properties. Both parties sought temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC); the Trial Court dismissed both applications.

The First Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal but allowed the respondent’s appeal and granted an injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the respondent’s possession.

The petitioner challenged that appellate order under Article 227 of the Constitution, relying on a 2014 memorandum of partition and subsequent mutation entries; the respondent relied on a 1999 registered sale deed and revenue orders.

Meanwhile, in W.P. No. 201222/2022, a coordinate Bench had directed that both parties’ names be entered in the revenue records, subject to the outcome of the suit, and restrained both parties from dealing with or constructing on the property pending disposal of the suit.

1. Whether the appellate order granting the respondent temporary injunctive relief should be set aside in the petitioner’s Article 227 petition.

2. Whether the Court needed to examine the legality of the impugned appellate order in light of the coordinate Bench’s earlier order governing the same suit property.

The petition invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, and the underlying applications for temporary injunction were made under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.

The Court’s stated basis for disposing of the petition was that the parties were bound by the coordinate Bench’s order of 6 August 2024 concerning the same property, which directed joint revenue entries subject to the civil suit’s outcome and restrained both parties from alienating, encumbering, or constructing on the property pending that suit.

The judgment states no further substantive test for interim injunctions.

The Court noted that the coordinate Bench had already issued directions concerning the suit property and that the petitioner had not challenged that order.

It therefore treated the earlier order as binding on both parties and considered it unnecessary to decide the legality of the appellate order granting the respondent an injunction.

The Court did not resolve the parties’ competing claims based on the partition memorandum, sale deed, possession, or revenue records.

It did not set aside the impugned appellate order or independently determine the merits of the temporary-injunction dispute.