Interim injunctions cannot finally disputed facts on deemed sanction or unauthorised construction before evidence is recorded.

At the interim injunction stage, disputed questions about valid service of notice, deemed sanction under Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, and whether construction was unauthorised could not be finally decided without evidence. The appellate court erred by treating those factual and legal controversies as conclusively resolved and by denying protection without properly applying the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The appellate order was therefore unsustainable, the revision was allowed, and the trial court's restraint order was restored, leaving the merits to be determined in the suit after evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court could finally decide disputed questions of fact and the existence of a deemed sanction at the stage of an interim injunction application, and whether the order refusing to maintain the trial court's protection was sustainable.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 170 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 permits a person to proceed with the proposed work only where a valid notice has been given and the board neglects to act within the period contemplated by sub-sections (7) and (8), subject also to the municipal bye-laws. The question whether the notice was validly served, whether the objections attracted clause (b) of sub-section (7), whether the later communication was received, whether the new plan could claim deemed sanction, and whether the construction was unauthorised all depended on disputed facts. Such issues required evidence and could not be conclusively determined while considering temporary relief. The appellate court, by treating those controversies as finally resolved and by holding that no legal right accrued, exceeded the proper limits of an interlocutory determination and failed to apply the settled tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in their proper perspective.

Conclusion: The appellate order was unsustainable, the revision was allowed, and the trial court's restraint order was restored.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief could not be denied by finally adjudicating contested factual and legal questions relating to deemed sanction at the interlocutory stage; the matter had to remain open for determination in the suit after evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputed questions bearing on deemed sanction and legality of construction cannot be finally decided at the stage of temporary injunction, and interlocutory relief must be assessed on the settled criteria of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

---