The discretionary nature of interim relief/injunction and the need to balance conflicting claims and interests when issuing interim orders.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant petition, Supervisory Jurisdiction of this Court enshrined in Article 227 of the Constitution of India is being invoked by the petitioners herein, who claim to have filed a suit in representative capacity for mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants/respondents herein before the Court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, R. S. Pura (for short “the Trial Court”) contending therein that a piece of land measuring 10 marlas covered under Khasra No. 188 min belonging to Laxmi Narayan Mandir (for short “the Mandir”) situated at Village Brij Nagar, Panchayat Kharian has been allegedly encroached upon by the defendants/respondents 1 to 4 herein by illegally constructing a gate on the north-east corner of the suit land with the aid and assistance of the defendant 5/respondent 5 herein, who have had been engaged by the management of the Mandir for the construction of a community hall on the suit land.

2. In the application for interim relief filed alongside the said suit before the Trial Court, the Trial Court dispose of the same on 16.06.2023 modifying the initial interim direction dated 07.10.2020, directed the parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the possession of the suit land as it exists at the time of filing of the suit, with a further direction that the suit land shall not be used for parking of any vehicles by the parties or otherwise till the final disposal of the suit.

3. Upon an application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein before the Trial Court for seeking clarification and implementation of order dated 16.06.2023, passed the order on 05.10.2023 (for short “the impugned order”), whereby the Trial Court while interrupting the order of status-quo clarified that the suit land shall remain in the same condition was it was on the day of filing of the suit and nobody shall use the suit land and directed the SHO Police Station, Miran Sahib to implement the initial order dated 16.06.2023, which is further clarified vide order dated 05.10.2023 in letter and spirit.

4. The plaintiffs/petitioners herein have questioned the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 in the instant petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the impugned order is bad both on facts and in law and that the impugned order has altered and modified the basic order dated 16.06.2023, thus, the Trial Court committed an error of jurisdiction and that the Trial Court mis-interpreted the basic order dated 16.06.2023 passing the impugned order in contradiction thereof and that the impugned order is absurd, liable to be quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that the suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein indisputably has been filed in respect of the land claimed to be belonging the Mandir, which Mandir is not a party/plaintiff in the suit, but the suit though filed in the representative capacity by the plaintiffs/petitioners herein is claimed to be filed as the Management of the said Mandir.

6. Be that as it may, this Court refrains from expressing any opinion in this regard and confine to test the validity or otherwise of the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 under challenge in the instant petition.

7. Law is settled that an interim relief is granted under and in terms of the provisions of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the aid of and ancillary to the main relief in a suit available to a party on final determination thereof. It is equally settled law that the power to grant an interim relief in the shape of injunction by a Court in an application for interim relief accompanying the suit is extraordinary in nature and has to be exercised cautiously and an interim relief/injunction, in law, cannot be claimed by a party as a matter of right or course, as the grant of an interim relief/injunction is in the discretion of the Court.

8. Reverting back to the case in hand, it is manifest from the record of the Trial Court that whi