Writ relief is declined where interim protection is available before the competent civil court.

The petitioners sought protective directions concerning land bearing Khasra No. 21/4, measuring 0.405 hectare, at Village Vijaypur, during the pendency of Civil Suit No. 19/2026 and their application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

They alleged that the private respondents were continuing construction and interfering with the property, and that proceedings concerning its proposed sale or alienation had been initiated before the Tahsildar.

They requested, among other things, restraint against further construction, alteration, transfer, or creation of third-party rights until the injunction application was considered.

Respondents 5 and 6 opposed the writ petition, arguing that the petitioners should pursue remedies before the civil court.

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking interim protective directions over property when a civil suit and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are pending before the competent civil court.

2. Whether the High Court should direct the trial court to consider the pending injunction application expeditiously.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC provide the civil court with the framework for considering applications for temporary injunctions.

In Qamruddin v. Rasul Baksh, 1989 SCC OnLine SC 1, the Supreme Court observed that, ordinarily, interlocutory orders in civil suits are not amenable to the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly where remedies under the CPC have not been exhausted; it also held that mandamus cannot ordinarily issue against a private individual absent a statutory public duty.

The High Court applied the principle that where the dispute and interim-relief application are already before a competent civil court, the parties should pursue that remedy there.

The property dispute and the petitioners’ request for interim protection were already pending before the competent civil court in the suit and injunction application.

In light of that available remedy, the High Court declined to grant parallel interim protection through the writ petition.

It left the petitioners free to pursue their remedies before the trial court and requested that court to consider the application on its own merits, without influence from the High Court’s observations.

It expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute or the petitioners’ entitlement to interim relief.