TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against an interlocutory injunction order could be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the interim arrangement in respect of the suit property should be maintained pending disposal of the suit.
Issue (i): Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against an interlocutory injunction order could be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The challenge before the Court concerned only the procedural conversion of a revision into a supervisory petition. Since the order under challenge arose from proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and was treated by the High Court as not amenable to revision, the High Court permitted the respondents to pursue the matter under its constitutional supervisory jurisdiction. The Court found no error in that course, noting that such conversion was within the High Court's power even without a formal request.
Conclusion: The conversion of the revision into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the interim arrangement in respect of the suit property should be maintained pending disposal of the suit.
Analysis: The dispute related to an educational institution functioning on the suit property and to competing claims over the disputed portion. The Court declined to examine the merits of the underlying controversy at the interlocutory stage and preferred to preserve the existing state of affairs until the trial court decided the suit. In order to avoid alteration of the factual position, the Court continued the earlier stay against demolition, restrained further construction or modification by the plaintiff, and directed expeditious disposal of the suit. The Court also left the parties to work out their substantive rights before the trial court.
Conclusion: The status quo and protection against demolition were continued, while the plaintiff was restrained from making further construction or altering existing constructions until the suit is decided.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings were concluded by sustaining the High Court's procedural course, preserving the interim protection over the property, adding a restraint against further construction by the plaintiff, and directing an early trial without adjudicating the merits of the underlying title or possession dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: A court may, in appropriate circumstances, preserve the subject matter by maintaining interim status quo, continue protection against demolition, and treat a challenge to an interlocutory injunction order as one invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 where revision is not maintainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
