Refusal of ad interim injunction upheld where threshold interest in property lacks documentary corroboration.

The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit seeking a declaration that a consent decree dated August 23, 2022, passed in a separate suit, is null and void

The appellant contended that the decree was passed while the plaintiff in that suit was under a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and subject to a moratorium imposed by the NCLT from July 18, 2022, to April 18, 2023

The appellant further claimed a threshold interest in the subject immovable property based on a prior agreement for sale, asserting a payment of over Rs. 4 crores toward a total consideration of Rs. 14 crores

A learned Single Judge refused to grant an ad interim injunction, noting a lack of documentary evidence to corroborate the alleged oral agreement or the payments made

The appellant challenged this refusal before the Division Bench, seeking to introduce new evidence of payment via an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in refusing to grant an ad interim order of injunction regarding the immovable property and the operation of the consent decree

2. Whether the consent decree is prima facie null and void due to the moratorium period imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)

The Court considered the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, primarily the requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

It implicitly referenced the appellate court's limited scope of interference with discretionary orders under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, unless there is a patent error in applying legal parameters

the Court noted Order XLI Rule 27 regarding the production of additional evidence in the Appellate Court

The Division Bench observed that at the time the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, there was no documentary evidence on record to prove the oral agreement or the part-payment of consideration

the Single Judge’s finding that the appellant failed to satisfy the "threshold interest" in the property was consistent with the materials then available

Although the appellant attempted to introduce evidence of payment at the appellate stage, the Court held that it could not fault the Single Judge’s decision based on documents that were not part of the original proceedings

Regarding the jurisdictional challenge based on the NCLT moratorium, the Court acknowledged the argument but found it appropriate to leave all merits-based contentions open for final adjudication by the Trial Judge

The Court held that the findings in the impugned order could not be faulted given the lack of evidence at the threshold

the Court clarified that it was not pronouncing on the merits of the case and directed that all points, including those regarding the moratorium and the demurer petition, remain open for the learned Trial Judge to decide during the final hearing of the injunction petition