No Article 227 Interference in Injunction Appeals Without Perversity: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has held that while the bar under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricts revisional jurisdiction against appellate orders arising from interim injunctions, such curtailment does not oust the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution; however, interference in such matters must remain narrowly confined to cases of patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or grave injustice.

Applying these principles, the Court declined to interfere with the appellate court’s decision setting aside a temporary injunction that had restrained an elected office-bearer of a student union, holding that no manifest perversity or jurisdictional error warranting supervisory intervention was made out.

While dismissing the petition, Justice Anjan Moni Kalita upheld the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia, whereby the appellate court had set aside the trial court’s order granting temporary injunction.

The High Court held that the appellate court had acted within its jurisdiction in re-evaluating whether the settled principles governing interim injunctions, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, were satisfied, and found no ground to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to restore the injunction.

The dispute arose from the 2024 election of the All Nyishi Students’ Union (ANSU), where the respondent was declared elected as President.

The petitioners, including a rival candidate and office-bearers of a federating student body, challenged the election process alleging violation of prior court orders, exclusion of legitimate delegates, and participation of disqualified voters.

It was their case that earlier judicial orders had expressly directed inclusion of their delegates and barred participation of certain rival delegates, yet these directions were allegedly flouted during the election process.

According to the petitioners, despite orders of the civil court and administrative authorities, including withdrawal of permission by the Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, the election proceeded, resulting in the declaration of the respondent as President.

The petitioners contended that such violations materially affected the outcome of the election, particularly since their delegates were denied voting rights while rival delegates, allegedly restrained by court orders, were permitted to vote.

On these allegations, the petitioners instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of the election as invalid and prayed for interim relief.

The trial court, by order dated 28.01.2025, granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from functioning as President and suspending the operation of the election result. This order was subsequently challenged before the appellate court.

The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 02/2025, set aside the trial court’s injunction order.

The appellate court held that the trial court had effectively pre-judged issues relating to alleged violation of prior injunction orders, which were yet to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC.

It further found that the essential requirements for grant of interim injunction had not been properly satisfied.

Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Gauhati High Court by way of a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution.

A preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability, contending that post the 2002 amendment to Section 115 CPC, a revision against an appellate order concerning interim injunction is barred.

The High Court examined the interplay between Section 115 CPC and Article 227 jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai. It reiterated that while revisional jurisdiction is curtailed, the constitutional power of superintendence under Article 227 remains unaffected, though to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of manifest injustice or jurisdictional error.

On merits, the Court held that the appellate court’s interference with the trial court’s injunction order did not suffer from any patent illegality.

It observed that an appellate court is entitled to reassess whether the discretion exercised by the trial court in granting injunction was in accordance with settled principles.

The High Court noted that the grant of interim injunction requires satisfaction of all three elements, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, and cannot rest solely on allegations of irregularity or violation unless duly established.

The bench further held that disputed questions regarding alleged violation of prior injunction orders and their impact on the election process required full adjudication at trial, and could not form the sole basis for restraining an elected office-bearer at the interim stage.

It also emphasized that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked to substitute the High Court’s view for that of the appellate court unless the latter’s decision is perverse or without jurisdiction.

Finding no such infirmity in the impugned appellate order, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the revision petition.

Case Title: Ashok Doka & Ors. v. Lezen Gyadi & Ors.

Bench: Justice Anjan Moni Kalita

Date of Judgment: 19.03.2026