Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, officers of the Central Railway, challenged the judgment dated 21/1/2010 of the 4th Additional District Judge, Nagpur in MCA No. 230/2009, which granted a temporary injunction in favour of the respondent, Mehmooda Shikshan and Mahila Gramin Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, restraining the petitioners from obstructing the respondent's use of a suit road. The respondent had filed RCS No. 456/2009 seeking permanent injunction and declaration, claiming that they had constructed an approach road on the shivdhura of survey no. 348 of Mouza Godhani pursuant to an order dated 26/2/2009 of the Tahsildar, and that the petitioners attempted to obstruct the road on 15/6/2009 by placing barricades. The petitioners opposed the suit, contending that the road did not reach the respondent's land and that the respondent was encroaching on railway land acquired in 1913. The trial court had refused temporary injunction, but the appellate court reversed that decision, finding a prima facie case in favour of the respondent. The High Court, hearing the writ petition under Article 226/227, held that the appellate court's order was not perverse and did not warrant interference, as the appellate court had correctly appreciated the material on record, including the Tahsildar's order and the prima facie findings. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The appellate court granted temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from obstructing the respondent's use of suit road, based on Tahsildar's order dated 26/2/2009 permitting construction of approach road and prima facie findings of user and obstruction. Held that the appellate court's order was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 226/227 (Paras 1-4). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Appellate Orders - The High Court under Article 226/227 will not interfere with an appellate order granting temporary injunction unless the order is perverse or without jurisdiction. Held that the appellate court had correctly reversed the trial court's order and the writ petition was dismissed (Paras 1, 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court's order granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was perverse or without jurisdiction, warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- appellate court's interference
- concurrent findings
- Article 226
- Article 227
