Temporary Injunction Maintained Where Existence of Triable Issues Regarding Sale Consideration Suggests Prima Facie Case

The Appellant (Defendant No. 2) challenged an order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Durg, which granted a temporary injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs (Respondents No. 1–7).

The Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land in Village Risama, alleging that they were induced into executing a sale deed in 2015 for ₹16,70,000/- but never received the consideration.

They claimed they remained in possession while the Defendants attempted to dispossess them.

The Defendants contended that the consideration was fully paid as per the registered deed, possession was handed over, and the land had since been transferred to a third party (Defendant No. 4).

The Trial Court granted the injunction restraining interference with the suit property until disposal.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in favor of the Plaintiffs for the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.

2. Whether the dispute regarding non-payment of consideration in a registered sale deed constitutes a triable issue at the interim stage.

The court applied Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, regarding appeals against interim orders.

Substantive principles of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC governing temporary injunctions, which require the satisfaction of a "triable issue" (prima facie case), "balance of convenience," and "irreparable injury".

The court also considered the evidentiary value of a registered sale deed and the doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" as discussed in Premlata @ Sunita vs. Naseeb Bee Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2055-2056 of 2022) regarding inconsistent legal stands.

The High Court observed that while the registered sale deed recorded payment, the actual receipt of the full consideration was a core dispute that could not be determined without a full trial.

The court noted that the Appellant’s conduct in previous mutation proceedings created doubt and presented a "triable issue," thereby establishing a prima facie case.

Regarding the balance of convenience, the court found that since the property was already being transferred to third parties (Defendant No. 4), an injunction was necessary to prevent "multiplicity of litigation" and the alteration of the property’s nature.

The court dismissed the Appellant's argument regarding the Plaintiffs' alleged admission of payment, noting a lack of independent evidence beyond the challenged document’s recitals.

The court concluded that a prima facie case existed and that irreparable injury would occur if the property were further alienated during the pendency of the suit.

The appeal was dismissed at the motion stage.