High Court holds that Trial Court cannot reverse earlier interim injunction order under guise of clarification; directs report on delay in pronouncement of order and stays subsequent order
In a significant judgment dated October 12, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (Srinagar Bench) restrained the Trial Court from reversing its earlier interim injunction order by way of a clarification in a civil dispute concerning construction rights over a disputed wall. The decision came in the petition filed by Manzoor Ahmad Bawni and others challenging the Trial Court's order dated March 9, 2024, which directed the defendants not to continue any demolition or construction over the disputed area until the next hearing.
The background of the case reveals that the Trial Court, on February 5, 2024, had disposed of an interim application filed along with the suit by the plaintiff/respondent, Mohammad Maqbool Ganai. The Court had modified a prior status quo order, permitting the defendant to undertake construction or demolition on the condition that the defendant had obtained requisite building permissions from the competent authority and filed an indemnity bond assuring restoration and compensation if the suit was decided against them. The balance of convenience was held to be in favor of the defendants, as restraining construction despite valid permission was considered harsh.
Subsequently, the plaintiff sought clarification of this order, alleging that the defendants' demolition/construction activities exceeded the scope of the permission granted. The Trial Court issued the impugned order on March 9, 2024, directing the defendants to halt all construction/demolition activities until further hearing and ordered service through the local police.
The petitioners contended that the Trial Court's clarification order was in fact a reversal of its earlier decision passed after considering the rights of parties and balance of convenience, which is impermissible. They further highlighted that arguments on the clarification application concluded on October 3, 2025, but the Trial Court failed to pronounce its order for a prolonged period, causing grave prejudice.
Upon hearing the parties and perusing records, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that once an interim injunction application has been decided after due consideration, the Trial Court cannot upset or virtually review that order under the guise of clarification. The Court also found the delay in pronouncing the order after conclusion of arguments to be unjustified and prejudicial.
In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court issued notice to the respondent, called for a report from the Trial Court explaining the delay, and summoned the scanned record of the case. Importantly, the High Court stayed the operation of the impugned March 9, 2024 order until the next date of hearing but permitted the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law.
This judgment underscores the principle that interim orders passed after evaluating the balance of convenience cannot be disturbed lightly and emphasizes the timely pronouncement of orders to avoid prejudice. It also highlights the procedural safeguards required when dealing with clarification applications to prevent misuse.
The matter is listed for further hearing on October 31, 2026.
Bottom Line:
Civil Procedure - Trial Court having already disposed of interim injunction application after considering balance of convenience could not, under the guise of clarification, virtually review or reverse its earlier order by restraining construction again - Non-pronouncement of order on clarification application despite conclusion of arguments for long period justified High Court's interference and stay of subsequent order.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Interim Injunction, Clarification of Orders, Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court
