JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals present a question regarding the nature of interlocutory jurisdiction and limits of appellate interference with exercise of judicial discretion in granting temporary injunctions. The controversy requires this Court to examine whether the Division Bench of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the ‘Code’), was justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the settled principles governing appellate review of discretionary orders.

I. THE APPEALS

3. These appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated 20.03.2026 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No.96 of 2022, FAO(OS) NO.97 OF 2022, FAO(OS) No. 98 of 2022, FAO(OS) NO.99 OF 2022, FAO(OS) NO.33 OF 2024 and FAO(OS) NO.49 OF 2024, whereby the Division Bench, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code, set aside the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge granting an interim injunction in favour of Mrs. Sita Chaudhary (the ‘original plaintiff’), and allowed the appeals preferred by the defendants. These appeals, by the original plaintiff’s legal representatives and other family members aggrieved by the reversal, seek restoration of the injunction granted by the learned Single Judge.

II. THE FACTS

4. Shri Devinder Singh Chaudhary (the ‘testator’) had, over his lifetime, established various companies, partnerships and trusts, in which the capital or shareholding held principally by the testator and his wife, the original plaintiff, with a minuscule shareholding held by third parties. These entities were asset-holding entities. The testator died on 05.12.2009. According to the original plaintiff, the testator had executed a Will on 26.03.2004 governing the succession of his shares in the family assets. According to one of his sons, Mr. Deepinder Singh, the testator had instead executed a subsequent Will dated 04.10.2008; whereas according to another son, Mr. Virender Singh, the testator died intestate.

5. After the testator’s death, his granddaughter, Ms. Sunanina Singh (defendant No.4), and her family moved to Chandigarh and began residing with the original plaintiff. Between 19.12.2018 and 06.06.2019, the original plaintiff executed a series of gift deeds and Limited Liability Partnership (“LLP”) transfer agreements, transferring capital and shareholding in the family entities, effecting sales of property, and advancing interest-free loans, particulars of which are set out below:

6. In addition, during the period of her residence with the original plaintiff, the defendant no.4 caused a farmhouse at ‘The Green’, Village Rajokri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, to be sold through the original plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4.72 crores, and obtained a further sum of Rs.50 crores by way of loans and advances. With the funds so obtained, the defendant No.4 and Mr. Ajay Kadyan (defendant No.9) purchased flats at DLF Magnolias an