Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has refused to grant interim protection in a property dispute over an allegedly fraudulent Release Deed, holding that an appellate court cannot interfere with a trial court’s discretionary order simply because it may have reached a different conclusion. Unless the lower court’s decision is arbitrary, perverse or contrary to law, it must be allowed to stand.
Justice Farjand Ali dismissed an appeal filed by Hamid, who had challenged a Nagaur trial court’s order refusing to grant a temporary injunction in his favour.
The dispute relates to agricultural land in Nagaur. Hamid has filed a civil suit claiming that a Release Deed (Haqtyagnama) executed on November 22, 2021 was fraudulent. According to him, the deed was executed by Respondent No. 1 along with late Hayat Ali in favour of Respondents No. 2 and 3 without any legal authority, affecting his rights over the property.
He also claimed that he has been cultivating and possessing the land for years and feared that the respondents might sell it, create third-party rights or change the nature of the property before the case is decided.
To prevent this, Hamid sought a temporary injunction, requesting the court to stop the respondents from dealing with the property until the final outcome of the suit.
However, the trial court refused to grant the injunction after finding that Hamid had not been able to establish a prima facie case strong enough for interim protection.
Hamid then approached the High Court, arguing that the trial court’s order should be set aside.
The High Court, however, refused to interfere. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., it observed that an appeal against an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction has a limited scope. An appellate court cannot re-examine the matter or replace the trial court’s view merely because another conclusion is possible.
The Court said it can interfere only if the trial court’s order is arbitrary, perverse, capricious, or contrary to settled legal principles. Since the trial court had considered the pleadings, examined the available material, and recorded reasons for refusing interim relief, there was no ground for interference.
The Court further observed that Hamid’s challenge essentially concerned the validity of the Release Deed and the parties’ rights over the property. These are the core issues in the pending civil suit and can only be decided after evidence is led during the trial, not at the interim stage.
Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal to grant temporary injunction, leaving the parties to establish their claims during the trial.