Bar on Grant of Final Relief at Interim Stage Not Absolute

Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Jaspreet Singh of the Allahabad High Court, in Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan v. Richa Mishra and 6 others (2026), set aside an Additional District Judge's order that had discharged a temporary injunction on the ground that it granted final relief at the interim stage, holding that no such absolute bar exists in law and that the question turns on the facts of each case. 

What was the Background of Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan v. Richa Mishra and 6 others (2026) Case? 

• Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan filed Regular Suit No. 455 of 2026 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, seeking declaration and injunction concerning Hind Charitable Trust, pleading that he had always been its Chairman. 
• He alleged that while he was in Delhi, certain trustees broke open the locks of the Trust's administrative offices and removed records, and that minutes of a meeting dated 03.02.2026 were fabricated to remove him as Chairman and transfer management to Respondent No. 1. 
• He further alleged that by fabricated minutes dated 16.01.2026, earlier accepted resignations of trustees were revoked and a new founder trustee was inducted. 
• He sought a declaration that both sets of minutes were void ab initio, and applied under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim relief. 
• By order dated 02.04.2026, the Trial Court restrained the defendants from interfering with his functioning as Chairman until a fresh election was held under the trust deed. 
• Two appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC were allowed by the Additional District Judge on 08.07.2026, holding that the Trial Court had granted final relief at the interim stage, that the appellate court's own unchallenged interim order operated as res judicata, that the discrepancies were an "accidental omission" under the trust deed, and that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands. 
• The plaintiff challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the Bar on Granting Final Relief at the Interim Stage: 

• The Court held that it would be an incorrect enunciation of law to state as a bland proposition that interim relief resembling final relief can never be granted, and that the Appellate Court could have discharged the injunction only if it had considered the facts and material on record and dealt with the Trial Court's findings. 

On the Powers of the First Appellate Court: 

• The Court held that a first appellate court hearing an appeal against an injunction order, though exercising powers co-extensive with the trial court, cannot substitute its own view without engaging with the trial court's findings and demonstrating why they are erroneous.  
• It held that the Appellate Court was bound to test the order against the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, while avoiding a mini-trial. 

On the Trial Court's Findings: 

• The Court noted that the Trial Court had recorded findings on all three ingredients for grant of injunction, including discrepancies in the minutes of 03.02.2026 casting doubt on the meeting's authenticity, the absence of any agenda for either meeting, and the plaintiff's removal on the strength of an FIR without show-cause notice or inquiry. 

On the Appellate Court's Reliance on Its Own Interim Order: 

• The Court held that the Appellate Court's reasoning cut both ways, since by the same logic, its own interim order dated 10.04.2026 staying the Trial Court's order would itself amount to granting final relief at the interim stage.  
• It cautioned that applying legal propositions in the abstract, divorced from the facts, risks a "travesty of justice in the name of upholding the law." 

On the Tentative Nature of Interim Observations: 

• The Court held that observations made while entertaining a petition or appeal are purely tentative, do not affect the merits, and do not bind the court at final hearing, and that the Appellate Court's contrary approach reflected poorly on its understanding of legal propositions. 

On the Plea of 'Accidental Omission': 

• The Court held that the Appellate Court had impermissibly lifted the plea of "accidental omission" from the text of the trust deed even though no defendant had pleaded reliance on that clause, and that such a plea was a matter to be established at trial, not pre-judged at the interim stage. 

On the Clean Hands Objection: 

• The Court held that the Appellate Court ought to have recorded a finding on the nexus between the facts allegedly withheld and the plaintiff's right to seek injunction, and having failed to do so, could not rely on non-disclosure as a ground to discharge the injunction. 

On the Scope of Article 227: 

• The Court held that Article 227 does not permit it to re-appraise evidence or substitute its own findings, and accordingly set aside the Appellate Court's order, restoring both appeals for fresh decision. 

On Interim Directions Pending Fresh Hearing: 

• Noting that the dispute affected the functioning of hospitals and a medical college run by the Trust, the Court directed that the Trust's bank accounts be operated jointly by the petitioner and another founder trustee (not Respondent No. 1), with withdrawals confined to salaries, statutory dues, and similar payments, each to be placed before the Appellate Court. 

What is Order XXXIX CPC (Temporary Injunctions)? 

Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers civil courts to grant temporary injunctions to preserve the subject matter of a suit pending final adjudication. Courts granting such relief must be satisfied on three settled ingredients: 

• Prima facie case — a serious question to be tried, not a conclusive finding on merits. 
• Balance of convenience — that greater hardship would be caused by refusing the injunction than by granting it. 
• Irreparable injury — that harm caused by refusal cannot be adequately compensated in damages. 

An appeal against an order under Order XXXIX lies under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC. While the appellate court exercises powers co-extensive with the trial court, it must engage with and displace the trial court's reasoning rather than substituting its own view without basis.