High Court affirms Uttarakhand appellate court’s authority under Article 227 to set aside a trial court’s rejection of an injunction application, holding that factual disputes over a pathway must await full trial; binding guidance for interim relief in property disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/2493/2025 of SURENDRA ARORA Vs ANITA ARORA |
| CNR | UKHC010130122025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the Additional District Judge’s order |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Order 39, CPC; Article 227) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a disputed factual issue regarding the existence of a right of way can be decided at the interlocutory stage for grant or refusal of a temporary injunction, or must be left for determination at trial. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that when the core dispute concerns the very existence of a right of way, that question is best resolved on evidence at trial and not decided on interlocutory materials. Accordingly, an appellate court may set aside a trial court’s refusal of an injunction application if it concludes that the factual issue is prima facie triable. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Principles under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC regarding interim injunctions; scope of High Court’s review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Original Suit No. 18/2023 filed by plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with a 10-feet-wide pathway; application under Order 39 Rr. 1 & 2 (Paper No. 6C) rejected by trial court (08.08.2024) because no pathway appeared in revenue records or commissioner’s report; appeal before Additional District Judge allowed (25.07.2025) setting aside the rejection; writ under Article 227 challenging that appellate order dismissed by High Court (01.09.2025). |
| Citations | 2025:UHC:7722; CNR UKHC010130122025 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The existence of a disputed right of way is a prima facie triable issue and cannot be decided on affidavits or preliminary reports at the interlocutory stage.
- An appellate court may reappraise and set aside a trial court’s refusal of a temporary injunction if it finds that the factual dispute should be left for full trial.
- Confirms the High Court’s narrow scope of interference under Article 227: absence of any illegality in the appellate exercise of jurisdiction will lead to dismissal of the petition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Trial court rejected the injunction (08.08.2024) on the ground that no pathway was shown in revenue records or in the Advocate Commissioner’s report.
- On appeal (25.07.2025), the Additional District Judge held that the existence of the pathway is a factual question requiring evidence at trial and should not be decided at the interlocutory stage, and thus allowed the injunction application.
- This Court, on petition under Article 227, found no illegality or jurisdictional infirmity in the appellate court’s reasoning or order and therefore dismissed the writ petition in limine.
Factual Background
Surendra Arora and another were sued in Original Suit No. 18/2023 by Anita Arora and another for permanent injunction to restrain interference with a 10-feet-wide pathway adjacent to the plaintiffs’ house. An application under Order 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC (Paper No. 6C) for temporary injunction was rejected by the trial court on 08.08.2024 for lack of any pathway record or commissioner’s finding. The plaintiffs appealed, and on 25.07.2025 the Additional District Judge set aside the trial court’s order and granted the injunction. The defendants then filed a writ petition under Article 227, which the High Court dismissed on 01.09.2025.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 227, Constitution of India: High Court’s power to supervise and correct lower court judgments in cases of jurisdictional error or illegality.
- Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Civil Procedure Code: conditions for grant of temporary injunction (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) and that such orders should not resolve core factual disputes requiring full trial.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing principles on interim injunction and scope of Article 227 review were reaffirmed.
Citations
- 2025:UHC:7722 (High Court of Uttarakhand)
- CNR UKHC010130122025
- WPMS/2493/2025