Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot bypass an available appeal against an interim injunction order.

Availability of an appeal against an interim injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure barred recourse to supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, so the High Court should not have interfered when a direct appellate remedy existed. The Court also held that a reasoned injunction order passed after hearing both sides could not be set aside merely because the High Court considered the trial proceedings to have moved too quickly; if further scrutiny was needed, remand was the proper course. The High Court's order was therefore unsustainable, the trial court's injunction was restored, and directions were issued for the society's election process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court ought to have entertained a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was available against the order of interim injunction; (ii) Whether the High Court could set aside the trial court's injunction without examining the merits and in the circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court ought to have entertained a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was available against the order of interim injunction.

Analysis: Where the proceedings arise from a civil suit governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) is a strong bar against invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. The existence of a direct appeal in respect of the very injunction order, and the fact that one such appeal had already been filed, made recourse to revision under Article 227 inappropriate. Supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to bypass the ordinary appellate structure provided by the Code.

Conclusion: The revision ought not to have been entertained and the High Court was wrong in interfering under Article 227.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could set aside the trial court's injunction without examining the merits and in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The trial court had heard both sides, received affidavits and documents, and passed the injunction order on merits. The High Court, instead of testing that order on merits, proceeded on the ground of perceived haste and allowed the revision. Even if expedition was thought excessive, the proper course would have been remand, not reversal without merits. The later conduct of meetings and elections did not render the dispute wholly incapable of adjudication, especially in view of the continuing litigation between the parties and the need to bring finality to the recurring disputes.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was unsustainable and the injunction order of the trial court was restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned High Court order was set aside, the interim protection granted by the trial court was restored, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct the society's election process in terms of the directions issued.

Ratio Decidendi: In civil proceedings, where the Code of Civil Procedure provides an effective appellate remedy against an interlocutory order, the High Court should not ordinarily invoke Article 227 to bypass that remedy, and any interference with a reasoned injunction order must be based on merits rather than mere dissatisfaction with the pace of disposal.

---