Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the trial court dated 30.06.2018 in O.S. No. 103/2012 and the order of the appellate court dated 30.10.2018 in Misc. Appeal No. 13/2018. The trial court had refused to grant a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners, and the appellate court had confirmed that order. The petitioners contended that the courts below had erred in appreciating the evidence and that the findings were perverse. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be exercised to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless there is a perverse finding or jurisdictional error. The court found no such error in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition. The court also noted that the suit itself was pending and the petitioners could seek appropriate relief before the trial court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Permanent Injunction - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Scope of Article 227 - The petitioners sought to challenge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court in a suit for permanent injunction. The High Court held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be exercised to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless there is a perverse finding or jurisdictional error. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Temporary Injunction - The trial court had refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court found no infirmity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court in a suit for permanent injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders and that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to reappreciate evidence.
Law Points
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Permanent Injunction
- Concurrent Findings of Fact
- Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction
