The Orissa High Court held that a supervisory petition under Article 227 cannot be used to sidestep the ordinary statutory appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, and reiterated that an injunction restraining termination of a personal service contract is barred under Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, absent a recognised exception.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Axis Bank Ltd. and its officials, filed a CMP petition under Article 227 challenging an ad-interim injunction dated 08.05.2026 that restrained them from removing the opposite party, Brajakishore Mishra, from his post of Cluster Head (Vice President). Mishra claimed he was pressured to resign on 29.04.2026 and sought protection of his continuance in service.
Key Facts
- 29.04.2026: Mishra was called for a meeting by petitioners No.2-4 and allegedly pressured to resign.
- 30.04.2026 and 01.05.2026: Mishra sent grievance emails to the petitioners, which remained unanswered.
- 08.05.2026: The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC restraining the petitioners from removing Mishra.
- 15.05.2026: Petitioners received notice of the injunction.
- 18.05.2026: Petitioners appeared, sought time to file objection, and the court extended the interim protection till disposal of the I.A.
- 30.06.2026: Hearing of the CMP petition before the Orissa High Court.
- 06.08.2026: Judgment delivered.
- The underlying suit is C.S. No. 458 of 2026 filed by Mishra seeking a declaration restraining his removal.
- An interlocutory application I.A. No. 207 of 2026 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
Procedural History
- 29.04.2026 - Mishra alleges coercion to resign.
- 30.04.2026 - Mishra emails grievance.
- 01.05.2026 - Second grievance email.
- 08.05.2026 - Civil Judge issues ad-interim injunction (Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC).
- 15.05.2026 - Petitioners receive notice of injunction.
- 18.05.2026 - Petitioners appear; court extends protection.
- 30.06.2026 - CMP petition filed under Article 227 (CMP No.929 of 2026).
- 06.08.2026 - High Court delivers judgment.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioners (Axis Bank & Ors.): Argue that the injunction is barred under Section 14(1) and Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act; contend that the proper remedy is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC; maintain that the lower court erred in granting interim relief without recording reasons.
- Opposite Party (Brajakishore Mishra): Maintains that the injunction is justified to prevent unlawful termination; relies on the fact that he has over twenty years of unblemished service and that the lower court considered the grievance before granting relief.
Relief Sought
- Petitioners: Dismissal of the CMP petition, restoration of their right to remove the opposite party, and direction that the matter be decided by the Civil Judge under the ordinary appeal process.
- Opposite Party: Continuation of the status-quo protecting his post until the final decision on I.A. No. 207 of 2026.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable when a specific statutory appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is available; and (2) Whether an injunction restraining the termination of a contract of personal service is barred under Section 14(1) and Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on the principle that a contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable and that relief is limited to damages, citing Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain and Pearlite Liners (P) Ltd. v. Manorama Sirsi. They argued that the lower court committed a jurisdictional error by granting an injunction without recording reasons as required by the proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, and that the proper remedy is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.
For the Opposite Party
Mishra contended that the injunction was necessary to prevent arbitrary removal, emphasizing his two-decade service record and the threat of coercion. He argued that the lower court had duly considered the grievance and that equity favored maintaining his post pending final determination of the suit.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first examined the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. It reiterated that this jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or gross miscarriage of justice, and cannot be a substitute for an available statutory remedy. The Court noted that the existence of an alternative remedy does not create an absolute bar to a petition under Article 227, but the petitioner must demonstrate a prima facie case of jurisdictional excess.
"It is not in dispute that the ordinary and efficacious remedy against an order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 & 3 CPC is a statutory appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, and that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, which is to be exercised sparingly only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or gross failure of justice, is not intended to be a substitute for such a remedy."
The Court then turned to the Specific Relief Act. It affirmed the settled rule that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically performed; consequently, an injunction restraining termination is barred under Section 41(e) unless an exception applies, such as a statutory body violating constitutional rights or a case falling within industrial law. The Court found no such exception in the present facts.
Regarding procedural compliance, the Court observed that the petitioners had appeared before the lower court on 18.05.2026 but had not filed any written objection to the ad-interim order or to the suit, thereby bypassing the procedural mechanism under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. This omission reinforced the view that the High Court should not intervene at this stage.
Balancing the equities, the Court concluded that the appropriate course is to maintain the status-quo pending the Civil Judge’s determination of I.A. No. 207 of 2026, and to allow the bank to alter the posting of the opposite party in the ordinary course of administrative exigency.
The Verdict
The CMP application is dismissed. The parties are directed to maintain the status-quo on the opposite party’s post and service until the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrak finally decides I.A. No. 207 of 2026. The petitioners must appear before the lower court with a certified copy of this order within one week of 06.08.2026. The bank may, without prejudice, change the posting of the opposite party as per administrative needs. Each party bears its own costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Article 227 Cannot Substitute a Statutory Appeal
- Lawyers must first exhaust the specific appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC before invoking supervisory jurisdiction.
- Courts will scrutinise whether the lower court’s jurisdiction was patently lacking; mere procedural inconvenience is insufficient.
Injunctions Against Termination of Personal Service Contracts Remain Barred
- Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act continues to preclude specific performance of employment contracts.
- Exceptions are narrowly construed; reliance on equity alone will not overcome the statutory bar.
Procedural Exhaustion Is Essential
- Parties must file written objections under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC before seeking higher-court intervention.
- Failure to use the available procedural remedies may result in dismissal of supervisory petitions.
