Status quo injunction restored pending trial where admitted stream obstruction involved disputed factual claims.

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 18 of 2022 seeking declaration that a stream adjoining agricultural lands was a natural watercourse and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from digging, constructing upon, obstructing, or diverting its flow, allegedly affecting irrigation of the plaintiff’s and other association members’ agricultural lands.

The Trial Court granted an ex parte status quo order on 24.08.2022, but vacated it on 12.02.2024, principally because the plaintiff had not produced documentary material supporting the alleged construction, apart from signatures and photographs which were left for proof at trial.

The plaintiff’s appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC was initially granted interim protection but was ultimately dismissed by the District Judge on 17.04.2025, who held that the original status quo order was vague.

The plaintiff invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The defendants did not dispute the existence of the stream, the agricultural lands, or construction undertaken near the stream; however, they maintained that the construction was protective and intended to restore the stream to its original course, rather than divert it.

The suit had reached the stage of issue hearing but had been repeatedly adjourned sine die during the pendency of the interim orders.

Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in vacating and refusing to continue the status quo order concerning the stream and the construction near it.

Whether, pending final adjudication of the competing claims regarding diversion or restoration of the stream, the status quo order should be restored and continued until disposal of the suit.

Whether the Trial Court should be directed to expedite the trial after the interim order had caused the suit to remain stalled.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in examining the interlocutory orders passed by the subordinate courts.

The plaintiff’s challenge before the First Appellate Court arose under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits an appeal against specified orders relating to temporary injunctions.

The Court applied the principle that, where material circumstances are substantially undisputed but the parties differ on the legal and factual character of the disputed act, interim protection may be continued to preserve the existing position until trial, without finally deciding the merits.

It further applied the procedural principle that interim protection should not indefinitely halt the trial; instead, the underlying suit should be expedited subject to the Trial Court’s official business.

The High Court found that the existence of the stream, the agricultural lands, and construction near the stream was not disputed.

The only substantial controversy was whether the construction diverted the stream to benefit the defendants or was a protective measure intended to restore its natural course.

Since that controversy required adjudication in the suit, the Court considered it appropriate to preserve the status quo rather than allow either party to alter the disputed position during the pendency of the trial.

The Trial Court’s reliance on the absence of documentary proof was not sufficient, at the interim stage, to justify vacating protection when the construction itself was admitted and the competing explanations remained to be tested at trial.

The High Court also noted that the status quo protection had operated for substantial periods before and during the proceedings, and that the suit had been stalled because of the interim proceedings.

It therefore restored the protection while directing prompt completion of the suit.

It set aside the First Appellate Court’s order dated 17.04.2025 and, consequently, the Trial Court’s order dated 12.02.2024.

The ex parte status quo order dated 24.08.2022 was restored and directed to continue until disposal of Original Suit No. 18 of 2022.

The Trial Court was directed to expedite the suit, frame issues, conclude the trial, and pronounce its decision as expeditiously as its official business permitted.

The connected miscellaneous application was disposed of as closed, with no order as to costs.