Trial Court's Discretionary Grant of Temporary Injunction Sustained Pending Appointment of Local Commission for Land Demarcation.

The Plaintiff (Respondent No.1) filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land at Khasra No. 273/18 in Durg, claiming the Appellant (Defendant No.1) was encroaching or misrepresenting boundaries

The Plaintiff alleged that while her land lies to the west of the Appellant's, the Appellant's sale deed incorrectly recites the "G.E. Road" as the western boundary

The Trial Court (5th ADJ, Durg) granted a temporary injunction on 13.03.2026, restraining the Appellant from disturbing the land and restraining the Tehsildar from conducting demarcation or partition until the suit's disposal

The Appellant challenged this order, arguing it prevents the resolution of the boundary dispute itself

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in granting a temporary injunction restraining demarcation proceedings when the core dispute pertains to the identification of boundaries.

2. Whether the dispute can be effectively adjudicated in the absence of a formal demarcation report or the appointment of a Commissioner.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which dictates the grant of temporary injunctions based on the three-pronged test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss

Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC, which empowers the court to appoint a Commissioner for local investigation/demarcation to elucidate any matter in dispute, particularly regarding the identification or boundary of immovable property

The High Court observed that the primary dispute involves the status and boundary of the suit land as described in the respective sale deeds

The Appellant contended that by restraining the Tehsildar from performing a demarcation, the Trial Court effectively frustrated the means of resolving the dispute

Upon a specific query from the Court, it was noted that no party had yet moved the Trial Court for a court-monitored demarcation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC

The High Court reasoned that while the interim injunction currently holds, the proper legal remedy to resolve the underlying factual uncertainty regarding the land's boundaries is through a court-appointed commission rather than executive demarcation, which had been stayed

The court held that if such an application is filed, the Trial Court must decide it independently on its merits via a reasoned and speaking order

The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the suit, which is to be determined after evidence