Case Note & Summary
The present civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the original defendants (applicants herein) challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Nanded, in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2012, which confirmed the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mukhed, in Regular Civil Suit No. 1 of 2011. The suit was filed by the respondents (original plaintiffs) seeking permanent injunction against the applicants (defendants) in respect of suit property. The trial court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour. The appellate court, in the civil appeal, confirmed the trial court's order, recording concurrent findings of fact. The applicants, being aggrieved, filed the present revision. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited and cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a jurisdictional error. The court found that the lower courts had properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and recorded findings that the plaintiffs were not in possession and had no prima facie case. The High Court held that there was no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference in revision. Accordingly, the civil revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Scope of Interference - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings when the lower courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The jurisdiction under Section 115 is confined to jurisdictional errors such as lack of jurisdiction, illegal exercise of jurisdiction, or failure to exercise jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10) B) Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Discretionary Relief - The grant or refusal of temporary injunction is discretionary and the revisional court will not interfere unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely. In the present case, the trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour. (Paras 1-10) C) Civil Suit - Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Loss - The courts below held that the plaintiffs did not make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction as the evidence showed that the defendants were in possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs' title was disputed. The balance of convenience was also not in favour of the plaintiffs. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revisional court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the appellate court in a civil suit for injunction, particularly when the findings are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, holding that there was no jurisdictional error or perversity in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The impugned orders were confirmed and the revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors
- not re-appreciation of evidence
- Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse or without jurisdiction
- Order rejecting application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is discretionary and not amenable to revision if based on proper appreciation of evidence
