High Court sets aside appellate order, emphasizes trial court respect, grants injunction to prevent harm

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appellate court's order and directing the parties to maintain the status quo regarding a disputed passage to prevent potential harm. The court emphasized the importance of respecting trial court decisions unless there are clear grounds for interference, highlighting the discretionary nature of granting temporary injunctions and the limited scope for appellate court intervention. The judgment underscored the need to prevent irreparable harm and expedite the case without unnecessary delays.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to appellate court's order setting aside status quo directive by trial court in a civil appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition challenging an appellate court's order dated 20.08.2019, which set aside the status quo directive issued by the trial court in a civil appeal. The court highlighted that the grant of temporary injunction is discretionary, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or if settled legal principles were ignored. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Esha Ekta Apartments CHS Limited case, the judgment emphasized the limited scope of interference by the appellate court with the trial court's order on temporary injunction applications. The principle was reiterated that if two views are possible, the trial court's decision should be upheld.

The judgment further cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Maharwal Khejwaji Trust case, emphasizing that unless a party demonstrates irreparable loss or damage, a change in status quo should not be allowed to prevent potential harm to the party who may succeed ultimately. The judgment discussed a specific dispute concerning a 7.5 ft. passage where the petitioners feared the respondents might increase its height, leading to waterlogging and blockage of drains in adjoining plots. The trial court, after evaluating the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, had directed the parties to maintain status quo, a decision deemed justified to preserve the property.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appellate court's order. The parties were directed to ensure no alteration to the passage during the suit's pendency, with instructions for the trial court to expedite the case without unnecessary adjournments. The judgment underscored the importance of maintaining status quo to prevent potential harm and emphasized the need for courts to respect trial court decisions unless there are clear grounds for interference.

---