Court's Observations In Interim Relief Applications Are Tentative & Temporary, Not Final Opinion On Merits Of Case: J&K High Court

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani made these observations while hearing a plea under Article 227 of the constitution in terms of which the petitioner was assailing certain observations made by the trial court below.

The case originated from an injunction suit brought forth by the Respondent/Plaintiff, alleging unlawful interference with their possession of a parcel of land in Village Bansultan Tehsil R. S. Pura, Jammu. The Petitioners/Defendants contested these claims, asserting their longstanding possession and adverse ownership of the disputed land and as a consequence of which the interim relief granted in favour of Respondents came to be vacated.

Upon the Respondent's appeal against the trial court's order, the appellate court directed both parties to maintain the status quo on the disputed land, weighing the merits of their conflicting assertions. The defendants, dissatisfied with this decision, sought recourse through a petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

The petitioners (defendants) challenged an order passed by the appellate court directing parties to maintain the status quo on the disputed land and argued that the appellate court wrongly recorded a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the land, prejudicing their case.

Acknowledging the contradictory claims regarding land ownership and possession Justice Wani upheld the appellate court's decision to maintain the status quo, reasoning that any observations made on title were tentative and not final, and did not prejudge the merits of the case.

“While considering an application for interim relief, be it the trial court or an appellate court, while making any observation or recording any findings qua the controversy involved in the case, such observations or findings recorded are always tentative and temporary in nature and character being not final expression of any opinion as to the merits of the case”, Justice Wani recorded.

Highlighting the fundamental principles governing injunctions under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure the bench emphasized that interim reliefs serve to preserve disputed property until final adjudication and necessitate a delicate balance between conflicting claims.

“..The object of making an order of injunction is to evolve a workable formula to the extent called for by the demands of the situation, keeping in mind the pros and cons of a matter and by striking a delicate balance between the parties', the court explained.

In dismissing the petition, the court thus upheld the appellate court's decision, affirming the need to maintain equilibrium pending a thorough examination of the parties' claims.

Case Title: Kaka Ram Vs Mangat Ram

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 16

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment