In a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging a temporary injunction order in a suit for cancellation of a Will, the High Court held that the trial Court did not commit illegality in granting the injunction as there was a prima facie case. The appeal was dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed; no interference with the temporary injunction order is 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 564/2014 Manit Jain Vs. Shri Chandra Kant & Ors.
Date of Judgment
:: 05.01.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Mr. Shambhoo Singh, for the appellant. Mr. SG Ojha, for the respondent No. 1.
Appellant-defendant has preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC challenging the temporary injunction order dated 04.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in a suit for cancellation of a Will allegedly executed by deceased Sohanlal.
Learned trial Court after considering the application for temporary injunction laid by the respondent-plaintiff and the reply affidavit has found that prima facie case is made out, as the right of testator to execute the testamentary instrument pertaining to the property in question is required to be determined after taking evidence of the rival parties. That apart, other ingredients for grant of temporary injunction were also
2
decided in favour of respondent-plaintiff and finally the learned Court below has granted indulgence and protected the possession of the respondent-plaintiff till the disposal of the main suit and further a restraining order was made against the appellant-defendant not to alienate the property in question.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
Upon consideration of the impugned order and the nature of the suit, in my opinion, the learned Court below has not committed any illegality in exercising its discretion for grant of temporary injunction. Looking to the lis involved in the matter, the learned Court below has examined the question of prima facie case and has recorded a categorical finding that there is a prima facie case in favour of respondent-plaintiff. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order is neither perverse nor contrary to the material available on record. Moreover the other ingredients are also found to be in favour of respondent-plaintiff, and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the limited scope of judicial review in this appeal.
3
It is trite that granting or refusing temporary injunction is within the sole discretion of the trial Court and appellate Court should be slow to interfere with the discretionary order of the trial Court unless and until it is found that trial Court has acted perversely or against the prescribed canons of justice.
Thus, viewed from any angle, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby, dismissed.
It is expected that the learned trial Court shall decide the main suit itself as expeditiously as possible.
(P.K. LOHRA) J.
Bharti/-43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned trial Court erred in granting temporary injunction in a suit for cancellation of Will?
Whether the appellate Court should interfere with the discretionary order of the trial Court granting temporary injunction?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manit Jain
Shri Chandra Kant
P.K. LOHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
