Revision petition under Article 227 is not maintainable against an order of temporary injunction amenable to statutory appeal.

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed Title Suit No. 08/2023 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of a tea garden

In the associated injunction matter (Misc(J) Case No. 06/2023), the Trial Court originally passed an order on 05.10.2023 allowing both parties to enter the suit land and enjoy the tea produce "equally"

Subsequently, the respondents moved an application under Sections 152 and 153 of the CPC for correction of this order, which was registered as Misc(J) Case No. 29/2023

On 12.12.2023, the Trial Court modified the earlier order by deleting the words "by both the parties equally" on the grounds of correcting a typographical error

The petitioners (defendants) challenged this modification under Article 227 of the Constitution, alleging it exceeded the scope of Section 152/153 and surreptitiously altered the nature of the injunction

1. Whether a Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order modifying a temporary injunction, given the availability of alternative remedies under the CPC.

2. Whether the modification of the order dated 05.10.2023 fell within the ambit of correcting "accidental slips or omissions" under Sections 152 and 153 of the CPC.

Section 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which permit the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips in judgments or orders

Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the CPC, which provides for an appeal against orders passed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2

The Full Bench precedent of Akmal Ali & Others v. The State of Assam & Others (1984 1 GLR 133) to establish that where a statutory appeal is available, a revision under Article 227 is generally not maintainable

The High Court observed that the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 was essentially a rectification of an order passed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2

The Trial Court had explicitly stated that the words "both the parties equally" were incorporated due to accidental and typographical errors

The High Court reasoned that any grievance the petitioners had was essentially against the substance of the injunction as it stood after rectification

Since an order of temporary injunction (whether original or modified) is specifically appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the CPC, the petitioners should have filed a Miscellaneous Appeal rather than invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227

The Court also noted that the modification did not explicitly restrain the petitioners from entering the land, but rather clarified the respondents' rights

The petition was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that neither the original nor the modified order placed an express restraint on the petitioners from entering or enjoying the tea produce alongside the respondents