The High Court rules against Kusum Mishra, affirming the appellate court's decision to reject a temporary injunction in a property dispute with U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Kusum Mishra challenging an appellate court's decision that denied her temporary injunction request in a property dispute with the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The judgment was delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on March 10, 2026, reinforcing the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The case revolves around a dispute regarding the boundaries of House No.75-EWS allotted to Kusum Mishra in Awas Vikas Colony, Lakhimpur Kheri. The petitioners alleged that the respondents intended to allocate adjacent pond land and had wrongly marked Plot No.75/1 over part of this land. They sought a perpetual injunction to prevent any demolition or alteration to their house and adjacent land.
The trial court had initially granted a temporary injunction in favor of the petitioners, citing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable injury. However, the opposite parties, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, challenged this decision, leading to the appellate court overturning the temporary injunction on January 17, 2026.
Justice Vidyarthi's judgment emphasized the limited scope of appellate courts in interfering with trial court's discretionary orders. The High Court noted that appellate courts should only intervene if the trial court's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse, or if it disregards established legal principles concerning interlocutory injunctions.
In this case, the appellate court found that the petitioners had constructed a parapet extending beyond the allotted 42.21 square meters, infringing on Plot No.75/1, which was duly allotted to another individual. Furthermore, the petitioners had raised construction on the first floor without sanction from the relevant authorities. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the petitioners lacked a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not favor them.
Justice Vidyarthi dismissed the petition, affirming the appellate court's reasoning and highlighting the absence of a prima facie case in favor of the petitioners. The High Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal boundaries and the proper exercise of discretion in granting temporary injunctions.
Bottom Line:
Temporary injunction - Appellate court's scope in interfering with trial court's discretionary orders is limited; such interference is only justified if the order is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXIX, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XLI Rule 27
Kusum Mishra v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2865856
