Temporary injunction in specific performance disputes: appellate interference refused where serious triable issues and status quo needed preservation.

In a specific performance dispute over immovable property, the High Court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with a temporary injunction at the interlocutory stage unless the trial court's discretion is perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to settled principles. The record showed serious triable issues on whether negotiations had matured into a concluded or oral contract, whether the payment was part consideration, whether readiness and willingness was established, and whether the defendant had backed out after creating an impression that execution was imminent. On that basis, preservation of the suit property and maintenance of status quo during trial were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting temporary injunction preserving the suit property till disposal of the suit called for appellate interference in view of the dispute regarding a concluded contract, readiness and willingness, delay, and the need to maintain status quo pending trial.

Analysis: The appeals arose from an interlocutory order in suits for specific performance concerning immovable property. The Court reiterated that at the interim stage it is not expected to undertake a mini trial or finally adjudicate contested questions of contract formation, acceptance, or enforceability. The record disclosed competing versions supported by correspondence, drafts of memoranda of understanding and agreement to sell, WhatsApp exchanges, payment chronology, and bank balance material. On that material, the Court found that serious triable issues existed as to whether the negotiations had matured into a concluded or oral contract, whether the amount paid was part consideration, whether the plaintiff had shown readiness and willingness, and whether the defendant had unilaterally backed out after keeping the plaintiff under the impression that execution was imminent. In such circumstances, preservation of the subject matter was considered necessary, and the normal equitable rule of maintaining status quo during pendency of litigation was applied.

Conclusion: The impugned injunction order was upheld and no ground was made out for interference in appeal; the appellants failed.

Final Conclusion: The subject matter of the suit was directed to remain protected during trial, and the appeals were rejected without disturbing the interim arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the material on record discloses serious triable issues in a specific performance dispute, an appellate court should not disturb an interlocutory order preserving the property unless the trial court's discretion is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to settled principles governing temporary injunctions.

---