Interim Injunction Cannot Be Granted Based Solely On Advocate Commissioner Report Without Verifying Genuineness Of Agreement: Kerala High Court

"The Munsiff Court had not considered any of the evidence that had been let in by the respondent to show that he was not present in station on the day on which Ext.A1 agreement is said to have been executed. As such, it was a clear case of exercise of jurisdiction perversely." Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment dated August 6, 2026, held that an interim injunction cannot be granted in favor of a plaintiff claiming possession based on a disputed agreement when the trial court fails to examine the genuineness of the document and relies solely on a subsequent Advocate Commissioner report.

A bench of Justice T.R. Ravi observed that courts must properly evaluate competing documentary evidence and travel records rather than acting mechanically on physical findings recorded by commissioners visiting premises shortly after litigation commences.

Dispute Over Famous Kozhikode Shoping Arcade

The underlying litigation arose from a bitter commercial dispute regarding the possession and management of a readymade garment shop named CR7 situated in SM Street, Kozhikode. The plaintiff instituted OS No. 437 of 2022 seeking a permanent injunction based on an alleged agreement dated August 22, 2022, under which the defendant allegedly entrusted the business to him for five years against a refundable advance of Rs. 10,00,000. The defendant vehemently denied the agreement, contending that his signature was forged and that he was entirely out of the station on the date of execution.

Questions Regarding Document Authenticity And Commissioner's Findings

The primary question before the court was whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the discretionary temporary injunction granted by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff. The court was also called upon to determine whether an Advocate Commissioner's report noting physical presence at the cash counter can override substantial documentary evidence disproving the execution date of an agreement.

Appellate Court Rightly Interfered With Perverse Exercise Of Discretion

Appellate Court Interferes With Perverse Discretionary Orders

The High Court reiterated that while appellate courts generally do not interfere with discretionary orders passed by trial courts under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the CPC, interference is fully warranted when the trial court exercises its jurisdiction perversely. The bench emphasized that the trial court completely ignored crucial travel records, flight tickets, boarding passes, and hotel invoices produced by the defendant showing he was traveling to Mumbai, Ahmedabad, and Jaipur on the very date the agreement was allegedly executed.

Munsiff Court Ignored Fundamental Genuineness of Ext.A1 Agreement

The court pointed out that the trial court failed to notice glaring discrepancies on the face of the alleged agreement, including a wrong reference to the name of a business partner and contradictory facts regarding the issuance of stamp papers. The High Court observed that when a party's presence at the station on the date of document execution is seriously challenged with corroborative travel documents, the trial court cannot brush them aside without trial.

Advocate Commissioner Report Cannot Establish Prior Possession

Addressing the reliance placed on the Advocate Commissioner's report, the High Court noted that the commissioner visited the shop room two days after appointment amidst a huge crowd following police intervention and a sudden lockout. The bench highlighted that the commissioner found trade licenses and statutory registrations standing entirely in the name of a third party, Nishad, rather than the plaintiff or defendant.

"Merely because the petitioner was found in the cash counter at the time of visit of the Commissioner does not prove possession of the petitioner."

Absence Of Valid Statutory Invoices In Plaintiff's Favor

The court observed that the invoices produced by the plaintiff to claim ongoing business operations lacked the shop's GST number, whereas bills produced by the defendant bore the correct statutory credentials. Furthermore, the court noted that bill books relating to the days immediately preceding the suit had mysteriously gone missing, creating a strong suspicious circumstance against the plaintiff's claim of continuous possession.

Injunction Appeals Maintainable Against Consequential Orders

Addressing technical objections regarding the maintainability of civil miscellaneous appeals filed under Section 151 of the CPC alongside Order XXXIX, the court affirmed that misquoting or non-quoting of a procedural provision does not defeat statutory remedies. Relying on settled precedents including the Supreme Court rulings in Sukhbiri Devi v. Union of India and Firm Ishardass Devi Chand v. R.B. Parkash Chand, the court held that prayers for return of keys consequential to an injunction order are appealable.

The High Court dismissed all the original petitions filed by the plaintiff, upholding the common judgment of the Additional District Court-I, Kozhikode, which had set aside the temporary injunctions and key-handover orders. The ruling reinforces the doctrine that equitable interim reliefs require an unblemished prima facie case, and courts cannot grant injunctions by ignoring foundational documentary discrepancies and suspicious circumstances.

Date of Decision: 06 August 2026