1. Suit for declaration and injunction challenging removal of Chairman of a public charitable trust. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1535
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan - Petitioner
Versus
Richa Mishra and others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 4093 of 2026 Along with Matters Under Article 227 No. 4313 of 2026
Decided On : 01-09-2026
Important Points
Appellate courts cannot substitute their discretion for a trial court's in injunction matters unless the order is perverse. Interim relief similar to final relief is permissible in exceptional cases, and tentative observations made at the admission stage of an appeal do not operate as res judicata.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Section 94 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Grant of temporary injunction - The grant of an interlocutory injunction is governed by the 'trinity test' consisting of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury (Paras 30, 36). The jurisdiction to grant such relief is statutory in form but equitable in substance, requiring the party to approach the court with clean hands (Para 40).
(B) Appellate Interference in Discretionary Orders - An appellate court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the court of first instance except where the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or where settled principles of law were ignored (Para 35). The appellate court's role is to determine if the trial court's decision was reasonably possible on the material, not to re-appraise evidence to reach a different conclusion (Para 35).
(C) Scope of Interim Relief - It is not an absolute proposition of law that a relief similar to the final relief cannot be granted at the interim stage. In rare and exceptional cases where withholding such relief would cause extreme hardship or result in the frustration of the suit, the court may grant an interim relief that amounts to final relief, provided a higher standard of prima facie case is established (Paras 39, 48, 50).
(D) Nature of Admission Stage Orders - Observations made by a court at the time of entertaining a petition or appeal at the admission stage are purely tentative and do not impact the merits nor operate as res judicata to bind the court at the final hearing (Paras 51-52). (E) Prohibitions on 'Mini-Trials' - Interlocutory stages are not the occasion to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavits or to decide difficult questions of law. Courts must avoid conducting 'mini-trials' by performing close analyses of documents to predict the final outcome of the suit (Para 40).
Facts of the case:
A plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction challenging the validity of minutes of meetings used to remove him from the post of Chairman of a public charitable trust. The trial court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's functioning. This order was set aside by the first appellate court on the grounds that the interim relief was identical to the final relief, the plaintiff had not come with clean hands, and a prior tentative stay order at the admission stage operated as res judicata.
Findings of Court:
The first appellate court erred by applying legal propositions in abstract and divorced from the factual matrix. It incorrectly treated a tentative admission-stage order as binding and improperly introduced a plea of 'accidental omission' that was not found in the defendants' pleadings. The appellate court failed to properly address the trial court's specific findings on the three core ingredients of injunctions.
Issues: Whether the first appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction or committed a patent illegality by setting aside a discretionary interim injunction based on a rigid application of the 'final relief' rule and the misinterpretation of the binding nature of admission-stage orders.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court cannot substitute its discretion for the trial court's unless the order is perverse. The bar against granting interim relief identical to final relief is not absolute in compelling circumstances. Furthermore, admission-stage observations are not binding as res judicata, and appellate courts must avoid conducting mini-trials at the interlocutory stage.
Result: Impugned order set aside and appeals remitted to the first appellate court for fresh decision.
(B) Appellate Interference in Discretionary Orders - An appellate court should not substitute its own discretion for that of the court of first instance except where the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or where settled principles of law were ignored (Para 35). The appellate court's role is to determine if the trial court's decision was reasonably possible on the material, not to re-appraise evidence to reach a different conclusion (Para 35).
(C) Scope of Interim Relief - It is not an absolute proposition of law that a relief similar to the final relief cannot be granted at the interim stage. In rare and exceptional cases where withholding such relief would cause extreme hardship or result in the frustration of the suit, the court may grant an interim relief that amounts to final relief, provided a higher standard of prima facie case is established (Paras 39, 48, 50).
(D) Nature of Admission Stage Orders - Observations made by a court at the time of entertaining a petition or appeal at the admission stage are purely tentative and do not impact the merits nor operate as res judicata to bind the court at the final hearing (Paras 51-52). (E) Prohibitions on 'Mini-Trials' - Interlocutory stages are not the occasion to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavits or to decide difficult questions of law. Courts must avoid conducting 'mini-trials' by performing close analyses of documents to predict the final outcome of the suit (Para 40).
Facts of the case:
A plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction challenging the validity of minutes of meetings used to remove him from the post of Chairman of a public charitable trust. The trial court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's functioning. This order was set aside by the first appellate court on the grounds that the interim relief was identical to the final relief, the plaintiff had not come with clean hands, and a prior tentative stay order at the admission stage operated as res judicata.
Findings of Court:
The first appellate court erred by applying legal propositions in abstract and divorced from the factual matrix. It incorrectly treated a tentative admission-stage order as binding and improperly introduced a plea of 'accidental omission' that was not found in the defendants' pleadings. The appellate court failed to properly address the trial court's specific findings on the three core ingredients of injunctions.
Issues: Whether the first appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction or committed a patent illegality by setting aside a discretionary interim injunction based on a rigid application of the 'final relief' rule and the misinterpretation of the binding nature of admission-stage orders.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court cannot substitute its discretion for the trial court's unless the order is perverse. The bar against granting interim relief identical to final relief is not absolute in compelling circumstances. Furthermore, admission-stage observations are not binding as res judicata, and appellate courts must avoid conducting mini-trials at the interlocutory stage.
Result: Impugned order set aside and appeals remitted to the first appellate court for fresh decision.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- equity
- trusts
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Akshay Kumar Singh, Anupama Bhadauria, Apoorva Tewari.
For the Respondents: Amal Rastogi, Puneet Chandra, Radhika Varma, Sachin Tiwari, Shreshtha Srivastava
For the Petitioner: Akshay Kumar Singh, Anupama Bhadauria, Apoorva Tewari.
For the Respondents: Amal Rastogi, Puneet Chandra, Radhika Varma, Sachin Tiwari, Shreshtha Srivastava
Table of Contents
2. Appellate court erred in interfering with discretionary interim injunction; plaintiff's conduct disentitled him to equitable relief. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
3. Appellate court failed to apply correct legal principles for set-aside of injunction, incorrectly treated interim observations as res judicata, and conducted a mini-trial. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 )
4. An appellate court cannot set aside a discretionary injunction without finding the trial court's exercise of discretion was arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. (Para 35 , 36 , 40 , 47 )
5. Petitions allowed; appellate court's order set aside; appeals remanded for fresh decision; interim arrangement for joint operation of trust bank accounts. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 )
6. What is the standard of appellate interference for an order granting a temporary injunction?
An appellate court should not substitute its own discretion unless the trial court's exercise was arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or ignored settled legal principles. (Para 35 , 36 , 40 )
7. Can a court grant an interim injunction that is similar to the final relief sought?
Yes, it is not an absolute bar. In cases where failure to grant it would render the suit futile, a court may grant it upon a higher standard of prima facie case. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 )
8. Are observations made in an interim order by an appellate court binding at the final hearing of the appeal?
No, such observations are merely tentative and do not bind the court at the final hearing nor operate as res judicata. (Para 51 , 52 )
9. What constitutes an improper 'mini-trial' in an injunction application?
Conducting a detailed examination of the final merits, weighing probable outcomes, or resolving conflicts of evidence on affidavits, which properly await a full trial. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
10. What considerations are relevant for granting an interim mandatory injunction?
Courts consider a strong prima facie case, necessity to prevent irreparable injury, balance of convenience, and restoring the last non-contested status quo. (Para 48 , 49 )
JUDGMENT :
JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner, who was the plaintiff of Regular Suit No. 455 of 2026, had filed a suit for declaration and injunction, wherein he had prayed for an interim injunction, which was granted by the trial court vide order dated 02.04.2026, which was assailed in two appeals preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, one by Smt. Sarojini Verma and the other by Shri Brij Kishore Singh and Hind Charitable Trust; and both the aforesaid appeals have been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3 / Special Judge (NIA), Lucknow vide judgment and order dated 08.07.2026, which is under challenge in the aforesaid two petitions preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
FACTS IN BRIEF:
2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, registered as R.S. No. 455 of 2026, wherein it was pleaded as under:-
(a) A public charitable trust under the name and style of Hind Charitable Trust was created vide a registered trust deed dated 09.12.2004, having seven founder trustees, namely: Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan (Plaintiff), Smt. Sushila Chaudhary (Defendant No. 4), Dr. Harish Chandra, Ms. Richa Mishra (Defendant No. 1), Shri Sunil Kumar Verma, Shri Brij Kishore Singh (Defendant No. 2), Smt. Madhu Chaudhary (Defendant No. 5).
(b) Later, vide supplementary trust deed dated 19.11.2008, Shri Vikram Singh (Defendant No. 3) and Shri Moti Lal Goyal were inducted as trustees of the trust, as Dr. Harish Chandra, Shri Sunil Kumar Verma, and Shri Moti Lal Goyal ceased to be members of the trust due to their demise.
(c) That Smt. Sushila Chaudhary and Smt. Madhu Chaudhary also ceased to be trustees as they had tendered their resignations vide their letter dated 01.03.2004, which was duly accepted by the Board of Trustees.
(d) The petitioner was always the Chairman of the Trust and he also administered the affairs of two institutes managed by the Trust namely Hind Institute of Medical Sciences, Ataria in District Sitapur and Hind Institute of Medical Sciences, Safedabad in District Barabanki.
(e) The cause of action for filing of the suit precipitated on account of the fact that while the petitioner was in Delhi, taking advantage of his absence, it is alleged that defendant Nos. 1 and 2, along with his son, respondent No. 6 and others, entered in the administrative office of the hospitals managed by the Trust at Barabanki and District Sitapur, broke open the locks of the office, and removed important documents relating to the functioning of the Trust and the Hospitals. It was also alleged that the defendants took away the money kept in the locker in the petitioner’s office, and this incident was informed by the Financial Officer of the Trust to the petitioner.
(f) The petitioner was also informed regarding some fabricated minutes of meeting dated 03.02.2026, wherein Shri Brij Kishore Singh who allegedly chaired a meeting and resolved to remove the petitioner from the post of Chairman of the Trust. In the same meeting, it was further resolved that all executive, administrative, and financial powers of the petitioner be seized, and he was barred from entering into the hospitals administered and managed by the Trust.
(g) In the same meeting, it was also resolved that the management of the hospitals at Barabanki and Sitapur would be managed by Ms. Richa Mishra. The said minutes of meeting dated 03.02.2026 were said to have been confirmed in an alleged meeting held on 07.02.2026.
(h) It was also pleaded that in order to give vent to the evil designs of taking over the Trust and ousting the petitioner therefrom, another fabricated minutes of meeting was prepared allegedly dated 16.01.2026, which allegedly confirmed the minutes of meeting allegedly held on 20.12.2025 and in this fashion, the resignation of Smt. Sushila Chaudhary and Smt. Madhu Chaudhary was revoked, which had already been accepted by the Board on 01.03.2004. Signific
