In a special leave petition, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging an order dismissing an application for interim injunction. The High Court found no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution as the lower court order was reasoned and according to law.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 4066 of 2009
Date of Decision: 23.7.2009
Jagdish Parshad and another
....Petitioners.
Versus
Santosh Kumar and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The plaintiff-petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.2.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh, which has been affirmed on appeal vide order dated 19.2.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, whereby their application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.
The Additional District Judge, Mohindergarh, while affirming the order of the trial court had, in paras 9 and 10, of its order observed as under:-
“9. The parties have relied upon copy of judgment, decree and compromise dated 28.11.1958 passed in civil suit No. 100 of 9.4.1958 titled Tara Chand Vs. Chander Bhan and others along with akshsajra and some revenue record. From the perusal of the judgment, decree and compromise dated
CR No. 4066 of 2009
-2-
28.11.1958 in civil suit No. 100 of 9.4.1958 titled Tara Chand Vs. Chander Bhan and others it reveals that the property in dispute fell to the share of Banshidhar, father of Santosh Kumar defendant No.1. Since then defendant No.1 has been coming owner in possession of the property in dispute. There is nothing on record prima facie to show that plaintiffs are joint owners in possession to the extent of 1/3rd in the property in dispute. Hence, none of the three golden principles of adinterim injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is in favour of the plaintiffs. Whereas the same are in favour of the defendants and if Santosh Kumar defendant No.1 who is exclusive owner in possession of the property in dispute is restrained from enjoying his property in the manner he likes, he shall certainly suffer irreparable loss which shall not be compensated in any manner.
CR No. 4066 of 2009
-3-
discretionary relief of ad-interim injunction must come to the court with clean hands and if material facts are concealed ad-interim injunction cannot be granted. Even otherwise in miscellaneous civil appeal, the appellate court has very limited jurisdiction and can interfere only if order under challenge is patently wrong, illegal, suffers from impropriety and against record. But the order under challenge is reasoned, speaking and as per record and law on the point. So, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order under challenge which requires interference from this court.”
In view of the above, no ground to exercise jurisdiction by
this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made.
Dismissed.
However, nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
July 23, 2009 gbs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the order dismissing the interim injunction application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagdish Parshad and another
Santosh Kumar and others
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
