Remand of Interim Injunction Order Required Where Lower Court Fails to Evaluate Merits or Evidence

The petitioners and respondents own adjacent portions of agricultural land carved out of Survey No. 22 in Mouje Maska, Kutch

The petitioners filed a suit (RCS No. 48/2025) alleging that the respondent-Trust was encroaching upon their land while constructing based on unverified boundaries

The Trial Court appointed a District Inspector Land Records (DILR) commissioner and, based on that report, granted a status quo order on 03.09.2025 under Exhibit-5

The respondents appealed, and the 7th Additional District Judge vacated the status quo order on 10.11.2025, leading to this Special Civil Application under Article 226/227

1. Whether the Trial Court’s order granting status quo was legally sustainable despite failing to analyze the documentary evidence or the merits of the encroachment dispute

2. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in quashing the injunction in light of the permissions (Non-Agricultural use and construction) obtained by the respondent-Trust

The court evaluated the principles governing interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It emphasized the necessity of a "bonafide contest" and the judicial requirement to decide applications on merits rather than mere assumptions of preventing multiplicity of proceedings

the court considered the administrative procedures for land demarcation and development under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code regarding non-agricultural use

The High Court found that the Trial Court committed a procedural error by granting a status quo order based on the generic assumption that an injunction would prevent a multiplicity of proceedings, rather than assessing the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

The Trial Court failed to examine the DILR report in detail or consider the documentary evidence regarding the Trust's development permissions and demarcated boundaries

Because the Trial Court's reasoning was "erroneous" and failed to deal with the "real controversy," the High Court determined that a fresh adjudication of the interim application was necessary to ensure justice for both the landholders and the developing Trust

The matter was remanded to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandvi, with a direction to decide the Exhibit-5 application afresh on its merits and in accordance with the law within 15 days

Rule made absolute