Private forensic reports alleging forgery constitute triable issues and cannot justify vacating interim injunctions.

The Respondents/Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 09.04.2021, allegedly executed with late Mr. Deepak Rathi (predecessor of the Appellants/Defendants)

Per the MOU, Plaintiffs were to construct a motorable road on the Defendants' land for common use at their own expense (approx. ₹80 lakhs), in exchange for which the Defendants were to transfer "Land Parcel 1" to the Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs claim they completed the road and used it until the Defendants began obstructing access

The Defendants challenged the MOU as forged and fabricated, asserting that Mr. Rathi’s signature was electronically reproduced based on a private forensic report from Truth Labs

The Trial Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction on 27.03.2023, restraining Defendants from obstructing the road or creating third-party rights

The Defendants moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC to vacate the injunction, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 06.10.2025

1. Whether the Trial Court's refusal to vacate the interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was legally sound despite allegations of forgery

2. Whether a private forensic report provides sufficient grounds to discard a contract and vacate interim relief at the pre-trial stage

3. Whether the "triple test" of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss favored the continuation of the injunction

The court primarily applied Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which mandates that an injunction may be discharged or vacated only if a party has made a false or misleading statement or if there is a change in circumstances or undue hardship

It followed the "triple test" for interim injunctions: existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

Regarding forensic evidence, the court relied on the principle from Mariam Fasihuddin v. State of Karnataka, which holds that paid reports from private laboratories are generally unsafe and untrustworthy at the interim stage

It also considered Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regarding the validity of construction costs as consideration

The Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion.

It noted that the Plaintiffs had acted upon the Agreement by constructing the road, and the Defendants failed to explain why they did not challenge this construction while it was ongoing

The court held that the allegation of forgery is a "triable issue" that requires the parties to lead credible evidence at trial; hence, the MOU cannot be discarded at the preliminary stage solely based on a private laboratory report

The court further observed that the Defendants did not demonstrate any "change in circumstances" or "undue hardship" as required by Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to warrant a vacation of the stay

Procedurally, the court upheld the Trial Court's finding on service, noting that a bald denial of service is insufficient when the address is undisputed

Finally, the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiffs because denying access to a road already in use would cause irreparable loss to their easementary rights

The Court held that the Defendants failed to establish any grounds for vacating the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC

The interim injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the road access and creating third-party interests in the suit land remains in force pending the final adjudication of the suit