Trial Courts Must Mark Documents Relied On Before Granting Interim Injunction: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that trial courts deciding applications for temporary injunction must consider and mark the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties and cannot grant injunctions without recording findings based on such material. It further held that multiple distinct interim reliefs cannot ordinarily be sought through a single application under Rule 55 of the...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that trial courts deciding applications for temporary injunction must consider and mark the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties and cannot grant injunctions without recording findings based on such material.
It further held that multiple distinct interim reliefs cannot ordinarily be sought through a single application under Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice.
Allowing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the Court set aside a temporary injunction granted by the trial court and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after directing it to receive, mark, evaluate and consider all relevant documentary evidence before passing appropriate orders.
A Division Bench of Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Balaji Medamalli observed:
"Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned judge has failed to consider the documentary evidence placed on record and has not recorded any specific finding referring to the relevant documents with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs. The learned Judge also erred in not giving marking to the documents relied upon, though they were referred to. Apart from this, the learned Judge had entertained a single application seeking multiple reliefs, which is contrary to Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice."
The appeal arose out of an order granting temporary injunction in a suit based on possessory title.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their possessory rights over the suit schedule property, a declaration that certain registered documents were void, damages, and permanent injunction.
Pending disposal of the suit, they obtained an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession, changing the physical features of the property and creating encumbrances over it.
Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the trial court had granted the injunction without examining whether the plaintiffs had established the three cardinal requirements for grant of temporary injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. They contended that despite both parties filing documents, the trial court neither marked nor considered them and had also entertained multiple interim reliefs in a single application in violation of Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice.
Examining the record, the High Court observed that in a suit based on possessory title, the plaintiff is required to establish continuous possession over the property as on the date of institution of the suit, and the court must record a specific finding on the basis of the material available on record.
The Bench found that the trial court had concluded that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property without referring to any specific documentary evidence and had failed to appreciate the documents filed by either side, including those produced by the defendants.
The Court further observed that the documents placed before the court in interlocutory applications are required to be given markings The Court observed that, except for some stray entries, there was no documentary evidence before the trial court to establish possessory title over the suit property. Nevertheless, the trial court went beyond the material on record and granted the interim relief sought in the application.
Holding that the trial court had failed to appreciate the documentary evidence and had entertained a single application seeking multiple reliefs contrary to Rule 55, the High Court set aside the impugned order.
It remanded the matter for fresh consideration after directing the trial court to receive, evaluate and consider all relevant documentary evidence placed by both parties before passing appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Case Title: Mantri Vasantha Kumari & Ors. v. Sri Pagadala Subbarayudu @ Subbaiah & Ors.
Case No.: C.M.A. No. 280 of 2026
Counsel for the Appellants: V. R. Reddy Kovvuri
Counsel for the Respondents: Varrey Venkata Naga Vishnu Teja