Case Note & Summary
The present writ petition was filed by the defendants (petitioners) challenging the judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Sangli (Appellate Court) in Misc. Civil Appeal No.199 of 2022. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court set aside the order dated 05.09.2022 passed below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.265 of 2022 filed by the respondent (plaintiff) in the Trial Court. The plaintiff had filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of a disputed area admeasuring 130 ft. into 12 ft. D.P. Road situated between the plaintiff's property and the defendants' property. The defendants had developed their property on Survey No.32 after following due process and constructed a hospital with a sanctioned development plan, leaving set back areas and providing ingress and egress on the eastern and western sides for parking. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the entire disputed road area and sought to restrain the defendants from using it. The Trial Court refused to grant temporary injunction, but the Appellate Court reversed that decision. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership over the D.P. road, which is a public road. The balance of convenience was in favour of the defendants who had a sanctioned plan and needed access to their hospital. The plaintiff would not suffer irreparable loss as the road was public. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Appellate Court's order, and restored the Trial Court's order refusing injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The plaintiff sought injunction restraining defendants from using a disputed D.P. road area for ingress and egress to their hospital. The trial court refused injunction, but the appellate court reversed. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie ownership over the D.P. road, which is a public road, and the defendants had a sanctioned plan with ingress/egress rights. The appellate court's order was set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Ownership of D.P. Road - Public Road - The disputed area was a D.P. road (development plan road) and not part of plaintiff's property. The plaintiff's claim of ownership over the entire road was not supported by documents. The court held that a D.P. road is a public road and cannot be owned by a private individual. (Paras 2-8) C) Civil Procedure - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Loss - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The balance of convenience was in favour of the defendants who had constructed a hospital with sanctioned plan and needed access. The plaintiff would not suffer irreparable loss as the road was public. The trial court's refusal of injunction was correct. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court was justified in granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff when the trial court had refused the same, and whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Court, and restored the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Trial Court refusing temporary injunction.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- temporary injunction
- ownership of D.P. road
- ingress and egress rights
- sanctioned development plan
- set back area
