The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of conducting a “mini-trial” while considering applications for temporary injunctions under the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that courts must restrict their examination at the interlocutory stage to the three settled requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that courts should avoid lengthy orders dealing extensively with the merits of the dispute while deciding applications for temporary injunctions or appeals against such orders.
The bench deprecated the practice of entering into the final merits of a case while deciding temporary injunctions, emphasizing that interlocutory orders should focus solely on recording reasoned findings for the three established conditions rather than predicting trial outcomes.
The Court made the observations while setting aside a Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment that had interfered with an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge. The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench had failed to follow the principle laid down in Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp. SCC 727, that appellate interference with discretionary orders is warranted only when the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or contrary to settled legal principles.
The dispute arose following the death of Devinder Singh Chaudhary on December 5, 2009. The original plaintiff alleged that her granddaughter and her husband had taken advantage of her old age and fraudulently procured the transfer of shares and LLP interests valued at around Rs 1,000 crore.
On July 29, 2022, the Single Judge granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the disputed property during the pendency of the proceedings. However, the Single Judge made seven detailed findings on issues including the interpretation of a Will, Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and allegations of undue influence.
The Division Bench subsequently reversed the order on March 20, 2026, after making 12 detailed findings of its own. The plaintiff then approached the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Aradhe held that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had travelled beyond the permissible scope of proceedings at the interlocutory stage.
The Court observed that lengthy interim orders generally result when the court enters into the final merits of the dispute and effectively conducts a mini-trial on affidavits and documents that should properly be examined after evidence is led at trial.
Referring to Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that the examination at the stage of an application under Order XXXIX, as well as an appeal against such an order, is limited to determining whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a serious dispute requiring investigation at trial.
The Court noted that the Division Bench had undertaken an extensive examination of the Will, delay, alleged admissions, Section 89 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the alleged nexus between specific acquisitions and proceeds.
The Supreme Court noted that these matters are strictly reserved for trial, ruling that an appellate court cannot substitute its own view of the evidence unless the Single Judge’s discretionary order was perverse or arbitrary.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Division Bench judgment and restored the Single Judge’s order granting the interim injunction.
The post Supreme Court decries mini-trial at interim injunction stage, restores single judge’s order appeared first on India Legal.