Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of the original plaintiff Smt. Venkamma Namasivayam, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.06.2012 in respect of certain immovable property. Along with the suit, they sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property. The trial court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application for interim injunction vide order dated 20.05.2025, holding that the petitioners had not made out a prima facie case for the grant of injunction. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the impugned order and the material on record. It noted that the trial court had considered the pleadings and documents, including the agreement to sell and the possession of the property. The court found that the trial court's conclusion that the balance of convenience was not in favor of the petitioners was a plausible view. The High Court held that the discretionary order of the trial court did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The court held that the trial court's refusal to grant interim injunction was based on a proper appreciation of the pleadings and documents, and the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought. (Paras 10-15) B) Specific Performance - Interim Relief - Balance of Convenience - The court observed that the balance of convenience was not in favor of the petitioner as the suit was for specific performance and the property was in possession of the respondents. (Paras 16-20) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 - Interference with Discretionary Orders - The court reiterated that the High Court under Article 227 should not interfere with a discretionary order of the trial court unless it is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's refusal to grant an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC pending disposal of the suit for specific performance warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order refusing interim injunction.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- interim injunction
- specific performance
- discretionary remedy
- interference with trial court discretion
