Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with an application for interim injunction (Exh.5) to restrain the defendants from disturbing their possession over suit agricultural land. The trial court granted the interim injunction on 08/03/2013, holding that the plaintiffs were in possession. The defendants appealed to the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Akola in Misc. Civil Appeal No.69 of 2013. The appellate court, while categorically holding that the defendants failed to prove possession and that the trial court rightly found the plaintiffs prima facie in possession, allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs had not approached with clean hands. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court observed that the appellate court's finding of suppression of facts was not supported by the record, as the plaintiffs had disclosed the relevant facts in the plaint. The High Court held that once the appellate court upheld the finding of possession, the interim injunction ought to have been confirmed. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's order of interim injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Possession - Prima Facie Case - The appellate court, while upholding the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property, erred in reversing the injunction solely on the ground of suppression of facts, as the finding of possession was sufficient to grant interim protection. (Paras 4-6)
B) Civil Procedure - Suppression of Facts - Clean Hands Doctrine - The appellate court's observation that the plaintiffs had not approached with clean hands was not supported by the record, as the plaintiffs had disclosed the relevant facts in the plaint. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's grant of interim injunction on the ground of suppression of facts, despite upholding the finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order dated 15/06/2018 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Akola in Misc. Civil Appeal No.69 of 2013, and restored the order dated 08/03/2013 passed by the trial court granting interim injunction.
Law Points
- Interim injunction
- possession
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- suppression of facts
- clean hands doctrine
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 285
Writ Petition No. 3987 of 2018
Shri V.D. Muley for Petitioner, None for Respondent
Sau. Shakuntalabai @ Seema W/o. Sureshsingh Gour and Ramsingh S/o. Gangaramsingh Bisen
Premsingh S/o. Gangaramsingh Bisen (Dead) through Legal Representatives: Smt. Sushiladevi Wd/o. Premsingh Bisen, Rupesingh S/o. Premsingh Bisen, Riteshsingh S/o. Premsingh Bisen, Sau. Vaishali Dipaksingh Rathod, Sau. Neha Krupalsing Thakur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought restoration of interim injunction granted by trial court.
Filing Reason
Appellate court reversed trial court's interim injunction order despite upholding finding of possession.
Previous Decisions
Trial court granted interim injunction on 08/03/2013. Appellate court allowed appeal on 15/06/2018, setting aside injunction. High Court on 09/07/2018 continued the order.
Issues
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's grant of interim injunction on the ground of suppression of facts, despite upholding the finding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the appellate court erred in setting aside the injunction despite upholding the finding of possession, and that the observation of suppression of facts was not supported by the record.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the appellate court upholds the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, the interim injunction ought to be confirmed, and the appellate court cannot set aside the injunction solely on the ground of suppression of facts without supporting evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned lower appellate Court has categorically held that the defendants failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit property and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are prima-facie in possession of the suit property, the appeal was allowed against the plaintiffs by observing that the plaintiffs have not approached with clean hands.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction with interim application Exh.5. Trial court granted interim injunction on 08/03/2013. Defendants appealed to Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Akola in Misc. Civil Appeal No.69 of 2013, which allowed the appeal on 15/06/2018, setting aside the injunction. Plaintiffs filed writ petition in High Court, which on 09/07/2018 continued the order. Final judgment on 02/02/2023 allowed the writ petition and restored the trial court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
