Interim injunction for restoration of school management and possession denied due to suppression of material facts; status quo restored

Interim injunction law and equitable discretion govern requests to restore management and possession of school premises; applicants must show a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury, and exercise utmost good faith. Suppression or misrepresentation of material facts and use of police to effect possession are relevant to discretion, and long uninterrupted possession by rival claimants undermined the appellants' prima facie entitlement. On these grounds equitable considerations and balance of convenience did not favor grant or maintenance of interim relief, leading to restoration of the prior management and restraints on structural changes plus annual audited accounts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to an ad-interim injunction restoring their management and possession of the school premises at Paschim Vihar and whether the learned Additional District Judge was justified in dismissing the application for interim injunction on grounds that the appellants had not come with clean hands and had suppressed material facts.

Analysis: The legal framework for interim injunctions requires satisfaction of (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience in favour of the applicant, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury; the court must exercise equitable discretion and preserve the status quo where appropriate. An ex parte interim injunction demands utmost good faith and full disclosure of material facts; suppression or misrepresentation of material facts and obtaining police assistance to effect physical change of possession are relevant to the exercise of discretion. The facts show rival claims to management and long uninterrupted possession by the respondents since 1984, absence of clear prima facie possession by the appellants at the time of institution, non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 requirements before enforcement, and specific suppression/misrepresentation of prior proceedings and possession facts by the appellants. Considering these circumstances, the balance of convenience and the equitable considerations did not favour granting or maintaining the interim relief sought by the appellants, and reinstatement of the pre-disturbance position was appropriate.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appellants' application for ad-interim injunction on the grounds of suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands is upheld and the order restoring respondents to prior management and possession is confirmed; respondents are restrained from making structural additions without trial-court permission and must maintain audited accounts annually.

---