The appellate court erred by expanding an injunction beyond established possession, undermining due process regarding ownership evidence.

ORDER :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):

“(i). By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside and order dated 02.06.2018 (Annexure-3) may kindly be restored.

(ii). Any other order or direction relief which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioners.”

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts, which germane for decision of this writ petition are that the respondents (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC (Annex.1). They claimed that they are the lawful owners of the suit property and alleged that the petitioner (Ashok) is trying to dispossess them and interfere with their peaceful use and enjoyment of the property.

3. In response, the petitioner submitted reply (Annex.2) while denying respondents’ ownership over the suit property and stated that the respondents are only in permissive possession of the first floor, while the rest of the property is in his possession and prayed for dismissal of the application for temporary injunction.

4. The learned Trial Court after hearing on the application for temporary injunction, by its order dated 02.06.2018 (Annex.3), partially allowed the application for temporary injunction and granted relief limited to the first floor, based on the petitioner’s own admission that the respondents were in possession of that portion.

5. Dissatisfied with this limited relief, the respondents filed an appeal, which was initially dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 19.08.2019. The respondents thereafter being aggrieved of dismissal of their appeal, approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition, which writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 18.10.2019 while remanding the matter back to the appellate court for a fresh decision.

6. Upon the matter being remanded, the appellate court, by order dated 17.08.2023 (Annex.4), allowed the application for temporary injunction in its entirety and restrained the petitioner from interfering with the respondents’ use and enjoyment of the entire suit property during the pendency of the original suit. The appellate court also restrained the petitioner from transferring, alienating, or handing over the property to any third party until final disposal of the case. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2023, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate court committed a serious error in law and fact by granting full protection to the respondents without any evidence showing their possession over the entire property. He argued that the Trial Court had correctly limited the injunction to the first floor, as the petitioner had admitted permissive possession only of that portion.

8. He further contended that the appellate court increased the injunction arbitrarily, without properly examining the case record or the documents on file, such as construction bills and rent agreements, which show that the petitioner is in possession of the ground floor. It was also argued that the respondents failed to establish any clear title or ownership, particularly when they themselves admitted in their pleadings that the suit proper