Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendant Nos.1, 5, and 6, filed a writ petition challenging the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court in a suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 (original plaintiffs). The suit sought perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from obstructing the plaintiffs' use of a 9-meter road. The trial court, after hearing both sides, granted temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, finding that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in their favor. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's order. The High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, examined whether there was any grave error or perversity in the concurrent findings. The court noted that the trial court had recorded findings of fact regarding the existence of the road and its user by the plaintiffs, which were based on material on record. The High Court held that such findings could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless they were perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no such infirmity and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the injunction order. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience - The plaintiffs sought perpetual injunction restraining defendants from obstructing their use of a 9-meter road. The trial court granted temporary injunction after finding that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor. The appellate court confirmed the order. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of the road and its user by the plaintiffs could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. (Paras 2-10) B) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, can interfere only if the subordinate court has committed a grave error of law or perversity. The court found no such error in the impugned orders. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and appellate court were justified in granting temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from obstructing the use of a 9-meter road.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The impugned orders of the trial court and appellate court granting temporary injunction are upheld. The trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Right of way
- Injunction
