SHRUTI MANAV SHARMA Vs. SUNANINA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals present a question regarding the nature of interlocutory jurisdiction and limits of appellate interference with exercise of judicial discretion in granting temporary injunctions. The controversy requires this Court to examine whether the Division Bench of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the 'Code '), was justified in substituting its own view for that of the learned Single Judge notwithstanding the settled principles governing appellate review of discretionary orders.

(3.) These appeals arise from the final judgment and order dtd. 20/3/2026 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No.96 of 2022, FAO(OS) NO.97 OF 2022, FAO(OS) No. 98 of 2022, FAO(OS) NO.99 OF 2022, FAO(OS) NO.33 OF 2024 and FAO(OS) NO.49 OF 2024, whereby the Division Bench, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code, set aside the order dtd. 29/7/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge granting an interim injunction in favour of Mrs. Sita Chaudhary (the 'original plaintiff '), and allowed the appeals preferred by the defendants. These appeals, by the original plaintiff 's legal representatives and other family members aggrieved by the reversal, seek restoration of the injunction granted by the learned Single Judge.