Single Judge dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the District Judge's order allowing a temporary injunction in a suit for perpetual injunction regarding land possession.
Writ petition dismissed; interference by District Judge affirmed; trial court to decide suit on merits uninfluenced by interim order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP3123_16.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3123 OF 2016
Bhagvan Ganpati Mane … Petitioner Vs. Abdul Abbas Boabade … Respondent
Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil for Petitioner.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 16, 2016
P.C. :
Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner at length.
1/4
WP3123_16.sxw
property. Pending that Suit, plaintiff took out application exhibit-5 for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to his peaceful possession. Defendant filed written statement as also reply to exhibit-5 at exhibit-11 opposing the Suit as also application. By order dated 09.01.2014, the learned trial Judge rejected the application.
2/4
WP3123_16.sxw
registered sale deed dated 08.08.2012 in favour of the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.76,000/-. Plaintiff's name is also mutated in 7/12 extract. The learned District Judge also dealt with the contention of the defendant that the transaction dated 22.03.2000 between defendant and Raghunath Katkar was a nominal transaction and was entered into only as and by way of security for repayment of hand loan amount of Rs.15,000/-. The learned District Judge observed that till date, defendant did not challenge the sale deed executed on 22.03.2000. In fact, defendant executed a registered deed for rectification of anewari in favour of Raghunath Katkar, who subsequently executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned District Judge observed that the submission of the defendant that the sale deed is nominal, prima facie, cannot be accepted in view of the execution of the rectification deed. The learned District Judge also dealt with the provisions of the Act and held that the Suit is not barred under Section 36 of the Act.
“........., the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. The Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a
3/4
WP3123_16.sxw
contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Limited Vs. Pothan Joseph, (1960) 3 SCR 713, (SCR 721)
(R. G. KETKAR, J.)
Minal Parab
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the trial court's refusal of temporary injunction.
Whether the District Judge was justified in overruling the trial court's discretion regarding the injunction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Wander Limited and another Vs. Antox India Private LimitedReferred¶19
Wander Limited and another Vs. Antox India Private Limited, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727 · Who else cites this
Printers (Mysore) Private Limited Vs. Pothan JosephReferred¶23
Printers (Mysore) Private Limited Vs. Pothan Joseph, (1960) 3 SCR 713 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhagvan Ganpati Mane
Abdul Abbas Boabade
R. G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
