Status quo injunctions require findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

The respondent no. 1/plaintiff, Smt. Sabbri, instituted a suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 16.10.2023 executed in favour of the appellant.

She alleged that respondent no. 2 represented that a prospective purchaser wished to enter into an agreement to sell her property and induced her to sign documents believing them to be an agreement to sell, against an advance payment of ₹5,00,000.

The appellant denied fraud, asserting that the sale deed was voluntarily executed, the sale consideration was paid, possession was delivered, and mutation was carried out in his favour.

In the suit, the plaintiff sought temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The trial court allowed the application and directed the parties to maintain status quo by order dated 29.04.2025.

Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury warranting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Whether the trial court’s direction requiring the parties to maintain status quo was legally sustainable despite failing to determine who was in possession of the disputed property?

The court applied Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which temporary injunction may be granted only when the applicant demonstrates a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour, and the likelihood of irreparable loss.

At the interlocutory stage, the court must assess the available material prima facie and is not required to finally determine disputed title or possession, which are to be decided after evidence.

An injunction or status quo order must also be sufficiently clear and legally workable; a vague order that leaves the question of possession unresolved is impermissible.

The High Court found that the registered sale deed recorded payment of consideration and delivery of possession.

The plaintiff admitted receipt of ₹5,00,000, while ₹13,00,000 had admittedly been deposited in her bank account.

In addition, the sale deed had been registered and mutation had already been effected in the appellant’s favour.

On this material, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case at the interlocutory stage.

The same circumstances—registration of the sale deed, recorded delivery of possession, and mutation—also displaced the plaintiff’s claim that the balance of convenience favoured her.

No specific basis for irreparable loss was demonstrated.

The trial court’s status quo direction was additionally defective because it did not identify the person in possession and left the legal and factual position indeterminate.

The appeal was allowed; the trial court’s order dated 29.04.2025 directing the parties to maintain status quo was set aside, and the plaintiff’s injunction application was rejected.