Dismissed¶¶29

Gram Panchayat Kaapan v. Assistant Director

Chhattisgarh HC4 Dec 2024MA/37/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction; Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.; Order 43 Rule 1 (r) appeal; Gram Panchayat Kaapan; village Kapan ponds lease for 10 years; drinking water; Janjgir-Champa; Second Additional District Judge; prima-facie case; balance of convenience; irreparable loss; State Government guidelines; appeal dismissed; Justice Parth Prateem Sahu; 05/12/2024.

What did the court decide?

The finding recorded by the learned trial Court that there was no irregularity committed by the defendants in allotting the pond on lease cannot be said to be erroneous. ¶¶26

Gram Panchayat Kaapan Vs Assistant Director — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant had a prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss warranting grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., such that the trial Court's rejection of the application was erroneous. +1 more

¶¶20

Court's answer

The finding recorded by the learned trial Court that there was no irregularity committed by the defendants in allotting the pond on lease cannot be said to be erroneous.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, there is no prima-facie case in favour of the appellant.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

There is no error in the trial Court's finding that balance of convenience lies more in favour of the defendant and that no irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff.ratio¶¶26
This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order calling for interference by this Court.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur — MA No. 37 of 2020, decided 05/12/2024 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu: Gram Panchayat Kaapan's appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C. challenged the order dated 31.07.2020 of the Second Additional District Judge, Janjgir, dismissing its application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for temporary injunction in Civil Suit No.7-A/2020, by which it sought to restrain lease of the ponds at village Kapan for 10 years, pleading they would otherwise cease to be available as drinking water for villagers. Upholding the trial Court's findings that the defendants committed no irregularity in the pond-leasing process (which proceeds under guidelines and circular issued by the State Government), that there was no prima-facie case in favour of the appellant, that balance of convenience lay more with the defendant and that no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff, and noting that more than 4 years had passed since rejection of the injunction application and that the interim stay application was rejected on 05.11.2020, the Court held the appeal sans merit and dismissed it.

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:48083

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MA No. 37 of 2020

¶6

1 - Gram Panchayat Kaapan Through Sarpanch Shankar Lal Gautam, S/o Late Shri Bahadur Singh Gautam , Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kaapan, Janpat Panchayat Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Assistant Director Government Fisheries Department , Area Kulipota , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Collector Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

¶11

--- Respondent

¶12

____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶14

05/12/2024

¶15

Appellant has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C. questioning the legality and sustainability of the impugned order dated 31.07.2020, passed in Civil Suit No.7-A/2020, whereby the Second Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa has dismissed the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. by the appellant/plaintiff.

¶16

Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2024.12.07 11:27:40 +0530

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction seeking injunction that ponds, subject matter of the civil suit, situated at village – Kapan shall not be granted on lease for a period of 10 years on the ground pleading therein.

¶19

Along with the suit, he has also filed an application for the grant of a temporary injunction, stating that if the ponds, which are the subject matter of the suit, are leased for a period of 10 years, they will no longer be available for use as drinking water. This would cause significant difficulty to the residents of the village. Learned trial Court while considering the application for grant of temporary injunction has not considered the specific pleadings and grounds raised and in the application and has arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law has rejected the same by impugned order.

¶20

Learned State counsel supports the impugned order and would submit that it is in accordance with law. Learned trial Court has considered the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and all the parameters for granting temporary injunction was not found in favour of appellant.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for parties and peruse the documents placed on record.

¶22

Appellant is a Village – Panchayat and has filed civil suit seeking permanent injunction, injuncting the defendant therein not to allot the pond, subject mater of suit on lease to others for a period of 10 years.

¶23

While considering the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction, learned trial Court has considered the pleadings made in the civil suit as also the application

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

for grant of temporary injunction and recorded a finding that that the proceedings initiated for lease of the pond situated at village Kapan for a period of 10 years, no irregularity or illegally is committed by defendants and further that balance of convenience are not in favour of appellant in fact if the injunction is granted it will cause more inconvenience to defendants. There is no apprehension of irreparable loss to plaintiff. From the pleadings made in the application as also in the civil suit, it is the village panchayat who has filed the suit and not any other person. Proceedings for allotment of the ponds situated at village Kapan on lease is based on the guidelines and circular issued by the State Government in this regard. The ponds are to be allotted based on the guidelines. In the application it has not been pleaded that allotment procedure and allotment of pond is contrary to the guidelines issued by the State Government.

¶26

In the aforementioned facts of the case finding recorded by learned trial Court that there is no irregularity committed by defendants therein in allotting the pond on lease it cannot be said to be erroneous, therefore, there is no prima-facie case in favour of appellant. Further I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that balance of convenience is more in favour of defendant and no irreparable loss will be caused to plaintiff.

¶27

The application for grant of injunction was rejected by trial Court on 31.07.2020 thereafter more than 4 years is passed. Interim application of stay was rejected on 05.11.2020.

¶28

4 / 4

¶29

For the forgoing discussions and I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned calling interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being sans merit is liable to be and it is hereby dismissed.

¶30

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶31

Balram

Gram Panchayat Kaapan v. Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Kaapan v. Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jairam Vs Durga Bai

Gyan Chand Jaiswal Vs Om Prakash Jaiswal

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt. Nita Dubey

Bineet Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Employee State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s. Navdurga Fuel Private Ltd.

Bholanath Joshi (Dead), through Legal Representatives Vs State of Chhattisgarh