Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of a civil suit concerning possession of agricultural land. The appellant, Chandrashekhar Gajanan Bhogaonkar, and the respondent, Yeshwant Dhondi Potdar and others, were locked in litigation over who was in possession of the land and whether an ad interim injunction should be granted or refused. The trial court, on a prima facie assessment of evidence, found that the appellant was in possession of the land and further observed that irreparable injury would be caused to him if an ad interim injunction were granted. Aggrieved by the trial court's order, the matter was carried in appeal before the District Judge, who re-appreciated the evidence and came to a contrary conclusion that the appellant was not in possession of the land. The appellant then invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but the High Court declined to interfere. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court granted leave and issued notice with a view to exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties. However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he was not informed about any settlement and was therefore unable to persuade the respondents to enter into a compromise. On merits, the appellant's counsel contended that the trial court was wrong in its conclusion that the appellant was not in possession of the land. The Supreme Court, however, observed that it did not want to go into the controversy as to who was in possession of the land. It noted that the trial court had found on prima facie evidence that the appellant was in possession, but the District Judge had reversed that finding on re-appreciation of evidence, and the High Court had refused to interfere under Article 227. The Court held that at that stage it was not desirable to examine the merits of the case and the findings of the courts below, as doing so could adversely affect the respective interests of the parties. The Court emphasized that the only issue before it was of prima facie case and balance of convenience for grant or refusal of an ad interim injunction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the concurrent findings of the District Judge and the High Court undisturbed. The decision underscored the principle that in interlocutory matters, appellate courts should be slow to interfere with findings of fact relating to possession and balance of convenience unless there is a grave error, and that the Supreme Court would not reassess such findings at the stage of special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 227 - In a dispute over possession of land, the trial court found appellant in possession; District Judge reversed and High Court refused to interfere under Article 227. Supreme Court declined to go into merits at interlocutory stage, noting issue was of prima facie case and balance of convenience, and dismissed the appeal. Held that concurrent findings of lower courts should not be disturbed at this stage (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding possession and grant/refusal of ad interim injunction at interlocutory stage, particularly when High Court declined jurisdiction under Article 227.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; Supreme Court declined to interfere with findings of lower courts on possession and ad interim injunction.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- ad interim injunction
- Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction
- interlocutory findings not to be disturbed at SLP stage
