A temporary injunction cannot be maintained when there are significant discrepancies in the boundaries of the suit property between the parties' documents, as this creates doubt regarding the prima facie case and the identity of the property.

: ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.09.2025 passed in C.M.A.No.07 of 2024 by the learned Principal District Judge, Nirmal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No.71 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-06 guntas in Survey No.697 with specific boundaries. In the said suit, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.155 of 2022 seeking grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit schedule property. It was the case of the petitioner that he purchased the said property under a Registered Sale Deed dated 04.03.2022 from his vendor, who derived title through a Registered Gift Settlement Deed executed by the original owner, and that his name was mutated in the revenue records and he was issued pattedar passbook and title deed, thereby establishing his possession and enjoyment over the property. He further alleged that the respondent attempted to interfere with his possession and tried to dispossess him, necessitating filing of the suit and interlocutory application.

3. The respondent/defendant opposed the said application contending that the petitioner’s claim is based on fabricated documents with incorrect boundaries and that no such land exists as claimed. It was further contended that the respondent is the true owner and possessor of the adjoining lands and that the petitioner’s vendor’s family manipulated revenue records to create a false claim. The trial Court, after considering the documentary evidence, allowed I.A.No.155 of 2022 and granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred C.M.A.No.07 of 2024 before the Principal District Judge, Nirmal, and the Appellate Court, by order dated 01.09.2025, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court. Challenging the said appellate order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri C. Naresh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the appellate Court is arbitrary, contrary to law and facts, and unsustainable, as it interferes with a well-reasoned discretionary order of the trial Court without recording any finding of perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness. He further submitted that the petitioner has established a strong prima facie case by producing registered title documents, namely the Registered Sale Deed and the antecedent Gift Deed, which carry a presumption of validity, and that the respondent failed to rebut the same with any cogent evidence. He further submitted that the petitioner satisfied all three essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the appellate Court committed a patent error in placing reliance on an unproved and selectively considered map from an earlier suit, ignoring its evidentiary value and completeness, resulting in a perverse finding. He further contended that the appellate Court erroneously discarded the petitioner’s registered documents on the ground of alleged boundary discrepancies without prop