Writ petition challenging order refusing injunction in title suit. High Court held lower court's discretion was properly exercised and refused interference, disposing of application.
Title suit expedited; no injunction granted.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2722 of 2010
NALANDA
NALANDA
2
Versus
BIHARSHARIF, DISTT.- NALANDA
----------Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners, the plaintiffs in Title Suit No.
27 of 2004 are aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.2006, passed by the Additional Munsif, Nalanda, rejecting their prayer for injunction as affirmed by the District Judge, Nalanda on 18.1.2007 in Misc. Appeal No. 120 of 2006.
It is submitted that they have lawful title and possession of the lands in question. The respondents were seeking to interfere by attempting to raise
3
construction upon the same for which injunction had been sought. The trial Court erred in not considering the documents of the petitioners with regard to title/the settlement, municipal receipt and the house constructed by the petitioners. If the construction is not restrained, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
The impugned order dated 29.5.2006 adequately notices the claim of the petitioner for the source of the title originated from the sale deed. The rent receipts issued by the State Government and Municipal receipts. They may be suggestive of possession but are not conclusive. The petitioners claim to have raised construction after obtaining sanction from the Biharsharif Municipality but failed to produce evidence. They claim to have continued in uninterrupted possession to the knowledge of all.
Conversely, the respondents also claimed to be in valid possession of the disputed lands in pursuance of a construction raised by them duly sanctioned by the Biharsharif Municipality in Case No. 2/7 of 2003 and that they were paying tax to the municipality. That there had been a 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding between the parties duly contested by the petitioners in which orders were passed in favour of the respondents. It was on
4
consideration of these factors that the learned Munsif by his reasoned conclusion held that the petitioners had failed to make out a case for injunction which has been affirmed in appeal.
The grant of relief in an injunction is a discretionary order. This Court under Article 227 shall not interfere with discretionary orders only because another conclusion may also be possible on the same facts. The reasoning given by the Munsif as affirmed by the appellate Court is well considered, disclosing application of mind to the exercise of discretion, not warranting any interference by this Court.
In Heinz Italia vs. Dabur India Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 1 holding that injunction was a discretionary remedy it has been held at Pargraph-14:-
“14.………..It has been held in Wander Ltd. case that an interlocutory injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is in the nature of a discretionary relief and that interference should not be made when two courts have gone against a party…………”
As prayed on behalf of the petitioner, let the Title
Suit itself be expedited and disposed off at the earliest without granting any frivolous or unnecessary adjournment to either parties.
The writ application stands disposed.
P. Kumar
( Navin Sinha, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's discretionary order refusing an injunction in a title suit regarding disputed property.
Whether the grant of injunction relief warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Heinz Italia vs. Dabur India Ltd.Referred¶39
Heinz Italia vs. Dabur India Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Jagdish Prasad and others
Puspalata Sinha and others
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
