Petition challenging appellate court's grant of temporary injunction in a title and possession dispute over suit land recorded in the petitioner's mother's name. Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, noting the Revenue Inspector's report favoured the plaintiff, and dismissed the petition.
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
WP227 No. 473 of 2024
---- Petitioner/Defendant No.1
Versus
1. Hinchharam S/o Late Agar Bandhde, Aged About 88 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village- Nawapara (Mungeli), Tahsil And District Mungeli (C.G.)
2. The Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank, Branch Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G)
3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)
---- Respondents
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate. For State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, GA.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
14.06.2024
1. This Petition has been filed against the order dated 03.05.2024 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.2/2024 by the Principal District Judge, District Mungeli(C.G.) whereby while allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, injunction order has been passed in favour of the plaintiff and the order passed by the First Civil Judge Class-1, Mungeli dated 14.02.2024 in Civil Suit No.72A/2022 was set-aside whereby the application of the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, was dismissed.
2
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction. In such suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction has been filed. Learned trial Court has not found prima facie case in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff and dismissed the application and the same was allowed by the impugned order. Hence this Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned appellate Court has not assigned proper reasons and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff as the suit land was recorded in the name of Kunwariya Bai, who was mother of the defendant No.1/petitioner and petitioner is in peaceful possession of the suit land. Even the petitioner has obtained loan from respondent No.2 by mortgaging the subject property. So prays to allow the petition and set aside the impugned order.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the documents annexed with petition carefully.
5. In the matter of Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh , reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719 , the law has been established that grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/defendant; (2) the court’s interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other
3
words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it.
6. In the order passed by the learned trial Court, though the affidavit of Gangaram Bandhde and Meghuram Bandhe have been filed in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff about the possession only on ground the land has been recorded in favour of the present petitioner, the learned trial Court has reached to the conclusion that no prima facie case has been made out in favour of the plaintiff and the same has been corrected by the First appellate Court and first appellate court has also taken cognizance of the report filed by the Revenue Inspector which is also in favour of the plaintiff. So in view of such, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference invoking writ jurisdiction.
7. Resultantly, this Petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.
8. However, the concerned Court is directed to expedite the trial.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Avinash
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the first appellate court's order granting temporary injunction to the plaintiff was illegal or perverse so as to warrant writ interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad SinghRelied on¶5
(1992) 1 SCC 719 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhagbali
Hinchharam
The Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh State Gramin Bank, Branch Mungeli
State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, Mungeli
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
