Case Note & Summary
The petitioners (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction and a temporary mandatory injunction to restore a cart track that allegedly ran through the suit property and provided access to their lands. The trial court (District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam) allowed the temporary injunction application (I.A.No.3 of 2022) on 05.08.2023, finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiffs, and that irreparable injury would be caused if the track was not restored. The respondents (defendants) appealed to the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam (CMA.No.2 of 2023), which reversed the trial court's order on 10.09.2025, dismissing the injunction application. The petitioners then filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court. The High Court examined the scope of an appellate court's jurisdiction under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC when hearing appeals against orders granting or refusing temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The court held that the appellate court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on merits and substitute its own findings; its jurisdiction is limited to examining whether the trial court exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or acted in excess of jurisdiction. The High Court found that the appellate court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and coming to a different conclusion on the merits, which was not permissible. The High Court also noted that the trial court's findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury were based on revenue records and were not perverse. Consequently, the High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's order granting the temporary mandatory injunction. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Appellate Court's Jurisdiction - Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - The appellate court hearing an appeal against an order granting or refusing temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC cannot re-appreciate the evidence on merits and substitute its own findings. Its jurisdiction is limited to examining whether the trial court exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or acted in excess of jurisdiction. The appellate court must not act as a court of first appeal on merits. (Paras 8-12) B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Mandatory Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - For grant of temporary mandatory injunction, the court must find a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the applicant, and that irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction is not granted. The trial court's finding that the petitioners had a prima facie case based on revenue records and that the balance of convenience was in their favour was not perverse. (Paras 5-7, 13-14) C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court in revision under Article 227 can interfere if the subordinate court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. Since the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence, the High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the trial court's order granting temporary mandatory injunction. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court, while hearing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against an order granting temporary injunction, can re-appreciate the evidence on merits and substitute its own findings, or is it confined to examining jurisdictional errors and perversity?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order of the first appellate court dated 10.09.2025 in CMA.No.2 of 2023, and restored the order of the trial court dated 05.08.2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.115 of 2022. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Temporary mandatory injunction
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Re-appreciation of evidence by appellate court
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury
