The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant ruling on interlocutory injunctions, has held that trial courts cannot issue vague ‘status quo’ orders without first recording a prima facie finding on which party is in possession of the disputed property. Justice Subba Reddy Satti described the practice as a “shortcut procedure” that creates ambiguity and further litigation.
The Court made these observations while dismissing a Civil Revision Petition in the case of Boya Kistamma & Ors. v. Boya Suri. The petition challenged an appellate court’s order that had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, overturning a trial court’s direction to simply “maintain status quo.” While upholding the injunction, the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction to direct the plaintiff to furnish security to safeguard the defendants’ interests against potential losses.
Background of the Case
The legal dispute originated from a suit for perpetual injunction (O.S.No.58 of 2023) filed by the plaintiff, Boya Suri, against the defendants, Boya Kistamma and three others, before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The property in question consisted of two items, with the primary dispute concerning ‘item No.1’, an extent of Ac.00-52 cents of land in survey No.43-1-A-2. The defendants, in their written statement, claimed they had nothing to do with ‘item No.2’.
The plaintiff filed an application (I.A.No.39 of 2023) under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking a temporary injunction. The Trial Court initially granted an ad-interim injunction on February 4, 2023. However, in its final order on September 25, 2023, the Trial Court disposed of the application by modifying the injunction to an order of ‘status quo’, directing both parties to maintain it until the suit’s disposal.
Aggrieved by this modification, the plaintiff appealed to the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam (C.M.A.No.1 of 2025). The Appellate Court, after considering documents from both sides, allowed the appeal on June 16, 2025, and granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants then challenged this appellate order before the High Court through the present Civil Revision Petition.
Arguments Before the High Court
Sri A.V. Pardhasaradhi, counsel for the petitioners (defendants), argued that the Appellate Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by granting the temporary injunction. He contended that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of exclusive possession and that the court had not properly considered the defendants’ possession and cultivation of the land.
Conversely, Sri Tota Tejeswara Rao, counsel for the respondent (plaintiff), defended the Appellate Court’s order, submitting that it was legally sound and based on a proper appreciation of the documentary evidence on record.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Justice Subba Reddy Satti undertook a comprehensive review of the settled legal principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions, often referred to as the “trinity test”: (i) a prima facie case, (ii) the balance of convenience, and (iii) the likelihood of irreparable injury.
1. On Prima Facie Case: The Court clarified the distinction between a ‘prima facie case’ and ‘prima facie title’. Citing seminal Supreme Court judgments, including Martin Burn Ltd. vs. R.N. Banerjee and Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, the Court reiterated that a prima facie case “does not mean a case proved to the hilt.” It is a substantial, bona fide question that requires investigation. The Court observed, “Many a time, trial Courts are confused between ‘prima facie case’ and ‘prima facie title’… The court need not conduct a mini-trial at this stage.”
2. Critique of Vague ‘Status Quo’ Orders: The central focus of the judgment was the Trial Court’s decision to order ‘status quo’ without determining possession. The High Court strongly disapproved of this approach. It held that the term ‘status quo’ is ambiguous unless the court specifies what state of affairs is to be preserved.
Quoting from Kishore Kumar Khatiar Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, where the Supreme Court held that it is of no use to pass a status quo order without indicating the status of the property, Justice Satti observed:
“While ordering Status-Quo, the court must state in unequivocal terms what the Status-Quo is. The Court must state whether the Plaintiff or the defendant is in possession. Granting the order of status quo without recording the possession, in the considered opinion of this court, would leave the matter in doubt and ambiguity, and it would result in dangerous consequences.”
The judgment further stated that such vague orders frustrate the legal process, create a multiplicity of disputes, and do not serve the cause of justice.
3. Scope of Appellate Court’s Interference: The Court examined the limited scope of an appellate court’s power to interfere with a discretionary order, as laid down in Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. Interference is permissible only if the trial court’s discretion was exercised “arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely.” In this case, the High Court found that the Trial Court’s failure to record a finding on possession amounted to a procedural “irregularity,” which justified the Appellate Court’s intervention to correct the order. The Appellate Court had correctly analyzed the revenue documents (Exs.P1, P3, and R4) to arrive at a prima facie conclusion regarding the plaintiff’s possession.
4. Direction to Furnish Security: Finally, the Court addressed the need to protect the defendants should the plaintiff ultimately lose the suit. It noted the provisions of Section 95 of the CPC and, more specifically, the Andhra Pradesh State Amendment to Order XXXIX, Rule 3A. This rule empowers the court to call upon the applicant (plaintiff) to furnish security for potential damages that may be sustained by the other party due to the injunction.
The Court found that the Appellate Court, while rightly granting the injunction, had failed to exercise its power under this rule. Therefore, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court directed the plaintiff to file an undertaking affidavit before the Trial Court within four weeks, offering security as contemplated under the state amendment.
The Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, thereby upholding the temporary injunction granted by the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. The Court clarified that its observations were made solely for the disposal of the interlocutory application and should not influence the Trial Court’s final decision on the merits of the suit. No costs were awarded.
