Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the District Judge-1, Karad, which dismissed their appeal against the trial court's order rejecting their application for temporary injunction. The petitioners claimed to be in possession of the suit property, which was a plot belonging to the respondent cooperative society, and sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession. The trial court had rejected the injunction application on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove their possession. The appellate court affirmed this finding. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the petitioners had not produced any documentary evidence to show their possession over the suit property. The court observed that the trial court's finding was based on evidence and was not perverse. The court also noted that the dispute pertained to property of a cooperative society and could be subject to the jurisdiction of the cooperative court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, but since the civil court had entertained the suit and no objection was raised, the issue of jurisdiction was not pressed. The High Court held that the appellate court's order was a discretionary order and no interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction as they could not prove their possession over the suit property on the date of the suit. The trial court's finding that the petitioners were not in possession was based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 5-7) B) Cooperative Societies - Jurisdiction - Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The court noted that the dispute between the parties pertained to possession of property belonging to a cooperative society, which falls within the jurisdiction of the cooperative court under Section 91 of the Act. However, the civil court had already entertained the suit and the issue of jurisdiction was not raised. (Para 4) C) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court's Power - Interference with Discretionary Order - The court held that the appellate court's order refusing to grant temporary injunction was a discretionary order and the High Court in writ jurisdiction would not interfere unless the order was perverse or arbitrary. The appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and affirmed the trial court's finding. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of the suit property pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the District Judge-1, Karad, is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- temporary injunction
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- 1960
