Article 227 limits interference with discretionary injunction orders where possession, equity, and material suppression weigh against relief.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to cases where the subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, illegally, or with material irregularity, and it does not justify routine interference with a discretionary injunction order. Temporary injunction remains governed by the settled tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The appellate court, on reappreciation of the record, found that the defendants were in possession of the suit property, declined to sustain the injunction, and still protected the property by restraining alienation and third-party rights. Suppression of the earlier suit and its outcome was treated as a material factor against equitable relief, and the High Court found no ground to interfere.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the appellate court's order setting aside the trial court's temporary injunction and refusing to maintain status quo over the suit property.

Analysis: Interference under Article 227 is warranted only where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, illegally, or with material irregularity. Temporary injunction is a discretionary relief governed by the settled tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The appellate court reappreciated the material on record, found that the defendants were in possession of the suit property, and held that the injunction could not be sustained. The order also preserved the property by restraining alienation and creation of third-party rights. Further, suppression of the earlier suit and its fate was a material circumstance against the grant of equitable relief.

Conclusion: The High Court found no ground to exercise supervisory jurisdiction and upheld the appellate court's refusal of temporary injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not justify interference with a discretionary injunction order unless the appellate court has exceeded jurisdiction or acted illegally or with material irregularity, and equitable relief may be declined where material facts are suppressed.

---