Renovation was permitted during the partition suit subject to an undertaking not to claim equity if plaintiffs succeed.

The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 25805/2025 seeking partition and separate possession of a 600-square-foot suit property.

They sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC, to restrain defendant No. 5 from carrying out construction or alterations.

Defendant No. 5 sought an injunction permitting him to continue renovation work.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ application and allowed defendant No. 5’s application, finding that he was in possession and carrying out repairs; it also noted that he would not be entitled to claim equity for construction if the plaintiffs succeeded in the suit.

The plaintiffs appealed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

1. Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ application for an interim injunction and its permission for defendant No. 5 to carry out renovation warranted appellate interference

2. Whether defendant No. 5’s undertaking not to alienate the property or claim equity for construction sufficiently addressed the plaintiffs’ apprehension pending the suit

The appeal was brought under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, which provides for an appeal from specified orders concerning injunctions.

The applications before the trial court were under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC.

The court considered the requirements for temporary injunctive relief, including whether a prima facie case was made out and the balance of convenience and hardship between the parties.

The judgment cites no precedent.

It records that defendant No. 5 would not claim equity for construction if the plaintiffs succeeded in the suit.

The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s assessment that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case for an injunction and that restraining defendant No. 5 from renovation would cause him hardship.

Defendant No. 5 stated that he would not alienate the property and would not claim equity for construction, including any further construction on the 600-square-foot property, if the plaintiffs succeeded.

The Court held that this undertaking addressed the plaintiffs’ concern that construction might prejudice their claim to a share.

The High Court placed defendant No. 5’s undertaking on record and directed that he shall not claim equity for any construction put up on the suit property if the plaintiffs succeed in the suit.