Second appeal filed to set aside dismissal of an injunction suit. The High Court held that no injunction can be granted against authorities restraining them from performing statutory duty and dismissed the appeal.
The second appeal was dismissed; the judgment and decree of the courts below were upheld.
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.
R.S.A. No. 627 of 2006 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 627 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.01.2009
Baru Singh
...Appellant
Versus
The Sub Divisional Magistrate Amloh and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. H. S. Sirohi, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.
VINOD K. SHARMA.J(ORAL)
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 3.8.2004 and 18.11.2005 passed by the learned courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents has been dismissed.
The plaintiff filed suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and use of the Poultry Farm, opened and managed by the plaintiff at village Bhaddal Thuha and also restraining the defendants from removing or causing to remove the said
R.S.A. No. 627 of 2006 (O&M)
-2-
Poultry Farm as detailed in the headnote of the plaint.
The plaintiff claimed to be a landless labourer and for earning his livelihood had opened a Poultry farm at village Bhaddal Thuha by getting a loan to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- from Primary Coop. Agriculture Development Bank Ltd., Amloh. The Poultry Farm is said to be running since 1996. The plaintiff claimed that defendants No.2 to 5 felt annoyed with him, and on 10.12.2000, an application was moved with defendant No.1, on the basis of the said application defendant No.1 was issuing threats to dismantle the Poultry Farm and was causing interference in the smooth working of the Poultry Farm. The plaintiff requested the defendants not to interfere but as they did not pay any heed to his request, thus, the suit.
On notice having been issued, defendants No.2 to 5 appeared and contested the suit by claiming, that the suit as framed was not maintainable as defendant No.1 was taking legal action in discharge of his official duties in stopping pollution within the populated area. It was also pleaded that an official can not be restrained from discharging his official duty. It was further claimed that defendant No.2 being a Sarpanch, was bound to take legal action against the Poultry Farm which was causing pollution in residential area of the village.
On merit, it was pleaded that the defendants were exercising their legal rights for removal of nuisance, which the authority are bound to remove. It was claimed that the Poultry Farm had been opened without any legal sanction. The unnecessary interference, as claimed by the plaintiff, was denied by the defendants.
R.S.A. No. 627 of 2006 (O&M)
-3-
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed
by the trial Court:-
The learned courts below on appreciation of evidence brought on record, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. The learned Courts held that the suit seemed to have been filed, as the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood initiated against the plaintiff by defendant No.1.The name of defendant No.1 was subsequently got deleted by the plaintiff but without amending the pleadings.
The learned senior counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law :-
In support of the substantial questions of law the learned senior
counsel for the appellant contends that as the appellant has fundamental
R.S.A. No. 627 of 2006 (O&M)
-4-
right to carry on the business, therefore, he was entitled to injunction as claimed. It is further the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that in view of the stand taken by the defendants in the written statement there was no reason for the Court to dismiss the suit filed by the appellant-defendant. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below have failed to draw adverse inference against the defendants-respondent.
On consideration of the matter, I find no substance in the arguments raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. No person in the garb of right to business can create nuisance for others. Even otherwise, the suit as framed by the plaintiff-appellant was not competent as no injunction can be granted against the authorities to restrain them from performing their statutory duty. The learned Courts below, therefore, rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.
The substantial question of law as raised, do not arise for consideration in the present case.
No merit.
Dismissed.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge
19.01.2009 ashish/ 'sp'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act entitles the appellant to an injunction against lawful obstruction to his business?
Whether adverse inference should be drawn against respondents for their stand in the written statement?
Whether an injunction can be granted against authorities to restrain them from performing their statutory duty?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baru Singh
The Sub Divisional Magistrate Amloh
Vinod K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
