Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Murlidhar s/o Ramnivas Kabra, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 65 of 1995 before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathri, District Parbhani, against the defendants, Dadabhau s/o Maroti Abuj and others, seeking a declaration of ownership and a perpetual injunction in respect of land Gut No. 184 situated at Vadi. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner and in possession of the suit land, and alleged that the defendants were interfering with his possession. The trial court, after hearing the parties, granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The defendants challenged this order by filing a civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The revisional court, after hearing the learned counsel for both sides, dismissed the revision, upholding the trial court's order. The court held that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously, based on prima facie evidence, including the plaintiff's title documents and the commissioner's report, which indicated that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and that there was a 33-foot shiv (boundary) on the eastern side. The court further held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff and that the defendants had not made out a case for interference under Section 115 CPC. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Revision - Interlocutory Order - Scope of Interference - The revisional court under Section 115 CPC has limited jurisdiction to interfere with an interlocutory order granting temporary injunction, unless the order is shown to be perverse, without jurisdiction, or suffers from a material irregularity. The court held that the trial court's discretion, based on prima facie evidence of possession and title, should not be lightly disturbed. (Paras 1-10) B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Perpetual Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The plaintiff sought declaration and perpetual injunction claiming ownership and possession of land Gut No. 184. The trial court, after considering the plaint, documents, and commissioner's report, found that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. The revisional court upheld this finding, noting that the plaintiff's possession was supported by the commissioner's report and title documents. (Paras 2-8) C) Evidence - Commissioner's Report - Evidentiary Value - The commissioner's report, which noted the existence of a 33-foot shiv (boundary) and the plaintiff's possession, was considered by the trial court as supporting the plaintiff's case. The revisional court held that the commissioner's report, though not conclusive, could be relied upon at the interim stage to determine possession. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the trial court's order granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, when the trial court had exercised its discretion based on prima facie findings of possession and title.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The order of the trial court granting temporary injunction is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
- Section 115
- Revision
- Interlocutory Order
- Injunction
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Loss
- Possession
- Title
- Commissioner's Report
