The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a miscellaneous appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the refusal to grant a temporary injunction. The court held the appeal was devoid of merits as the appellant lacked possession and was not the sole owner.
The miscellaneous appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
M.A. No. 17 of 2020
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant: For Respondent No.1: For State/Respondent No.2:
Shri Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate. Shri Raghvendra Verma, G.A.
Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
Order On Board
25.11.2020
2
wall and in the event of its construction would cause an irreparable injury to the Plaintiff. It is contended further that the Plaintiff had acquired his valid title over the property in question by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated 09.12.1985 said to have been executed by Anil Ghai and others, and therefore, the alleged illegal construction by the said Defendant without any authority would not only defeat the very purpose of filing of his said appeal but would be involved in multiplicity of the suit. It is contended further that without considering the said fact in its proper manner, the Court below has erred in rejecting the said application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC.
3
construction of boundary wall after passing of the said judgment and decree of the trial Court and would cause an irreparable injury to him if he has not been restrained from doing such an illegal act. It, however, appears from a bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint, particularly paragraph 5, that the said Defendant has not only constructed a hut (kaccha house) but has raised the boundary wall over there. In view thereof, it is difficult to hold, based upon those photographs, that the said Defendant has initiated the alleged construction work after passing of the said judgment and decree of the trial Court. In any case, the Plaintiff was not found either in possession over the suit land or the owner of it. As such, three essential ingredients as acquired for issuance of temporary injunctions are not in his favour and the Court below has, therefore, not committed any illegality in rejecting the same.
order as to costs. Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE
Nikita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an injunction should be granted to restrain the respondent from constructing an illegal boundary wall.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Smt. Sudha Girish Pandey W/o Dr. Girish Pandey
Dhanku S/o Banshilal Yadav
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector District Bilaspur
Sanjay S. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
