Introduction:
In Mantri Vasantha Kumari & Others v. Sri Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah & Others (C.M.A. No. 280 of 2026), the Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions in civil disputes. A Division Bench comprising Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Balaji Medamalli held that trial courts cannot grant interim injunctions without properly considering and marking the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties. The Court also clarified that multiple independent interim reliefs should not ordinarily be sought through a single application under Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice.
The appeal arose from an order passed by the trial court granting a temporary injunction in a suit based on possessory title. The plaintiffs sought declarations regarding their possessory rights over the suit property, cancellation of certain registered documents, damages, and a permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, they obtained an interim order restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession, altering the nature of the property, or creating third-party interests. Aggrieved by the grant of the injunction, the defendants approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellants contended that the trial court had granted the temporary injunction without examining whether the plaintiffs had established the three essential requirements for interim relief, namely the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. They argued that although both parties had placed several documents before the court, the trial judge neither marked the documents nor analysed them while recording findings on possession.
The appellants further submitted that the trial court had improperly entertained a single interlocutory application seeking multiple distinct interim reliefs. According to them, such a course was contrary to Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice, which requires separate applications for separate reliefs. They therefore sought setting aside of the impugned order.
The respondents supported the trial court’s order, maintaining that they were in possession of the suit property and were entitled to protection during the pendency of the suit. They argued that the injunction was necessary to preserve the subject matter of the litigation until the dispute was finally adjudicated.
Court’s Judgment:
Allowing the appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the trial court had failed to discharge its duty while deciding the application for temporary injunction. The Bench observed that in a suit founded on possessory title, the plaintiff must establish continuous possession over the property as on the date of filing of the suit. Such a finding cannot be recorded without carefully examining the documentary evidence produced by both parties.
The Court noted that although the trial court referred to certain documents, it neither formally marked them nor evaluated their evidentiary value before concluding that the plaintiffs were in possession. It also failed to consider the documents produced by the defendants. Consequently, the finding regarding possession was unsupported by proper analysis of the material available on record.
The Division Bench emphasised that documentary evidence filed in interlocutory proceedings must be appropriately marked and considered before any interim order affecting valuable rights is passed. Recording conclusions without discussing the documents relied upon by the parties amounts to an improper exercise of judicial discretion.
The Court further observed that, except for a few isolated entries, the record did not contain sufficient documentary material establishing the plaintiffs’ possessory title. Despite this, the trial court proceeded to grant an injunction, overlooking the absence of adequate evidence and the rival documents produced by the defendants.
The High Court also found fault with the trial court for entertaining a single interlocutory application seeking multiple distinct interim reliefs, including restraint against interference with possession, alteration of the property’s physical features, and creation of encumbrances. The Bench held that such a course was inconsistent with Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice, which ordinarily requires separate applications for separate interim reliefs.
Observing that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence and had committed procedural irregularities, the High Court set aside the order granting temporary injunction. The matter was remanded to the trial court with directions to receive, mark, evaluate, and consider all relevant documentary evidence produced by both sides and thereafter decide the application afresh in accordance with law.
The judgment reiterates that the grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary judicial remedy that must be founded upon proper evaluation of evidence and settled legal principles. Trial courts cannot mechanically grant interim protection without recording reasoned findings based on the documents placed before them, particularly in disputes concerning possession of immovable property.