Writ Relief Is Declined Where the Civil Court Can Consider a Pending Injunction Application.

The petitioners sought protective directions concerning two parcels of land at Village Vijaypur, Khasra Nos. 22/2 and 23/2, which were the subject of Civil Suit No. 1/2026 and their pending application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

They alleged that a Tahsildar’s public notice dated 18 September 2026 included the parcels in proposed sale proceedings, creating a risk of alienation and third-party rights.

They asked the High Court to direct expeditious consideration of the injunction application and to restrain construction, changes to possession, physical alteration, sale, transfer, or other dealings with the property pending that consideration.

Respondents 5 and 6 opposed the petition, relying on Qamruddin v. Rasul Baksh, and submitted that the petitioners should pursue their remedies before the civil court.

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

Whether the petitioners should instead pursue expeditious consideration of their interim-injunction application before the trial court.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC provide the framework for a civil court to consider applications for temporary injunction.

The Court applied the principle that, where the dispute and an application for interim relief are already before a competent civil court, the parties should pursue that remedy there rather than seek parallel interim protection through a writ petition.

Respondents 5 and 6 relied on Qamruddin v. Rasul Baksh, 1989 SCC OnLine SC 1, which states that interlocutory orders in civil proceedings ordinarily are not amenable to Article 226 review where remedies under the CPC remain available; the High Court did not separately discuss or expressly adopt that precedent.

The property dispute was already pending in Civil Suit No. 1/2026, and the petitioners’ application for interim relief was before the trial court.

The High Court therefore declined to grant the requested protective directions, leaving the petitioners to seek relief through the pending CPC application.

It directed that the trial court consider that application on its own merits, based on the pleadings and material before it, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.

The petitioners were left at liberty to pursue their remedies before the trial court and seek expeditious consideration of their pending Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC application.

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