Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.116/04/B, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents, original defendants, claiming possession of a property at Carmibhat, Murda, Merces, Goa. Along with the suit, they filed an application for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The trial court, after hearing both sides, confirmed the ad interim order dated 10.4.2004 and granted an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. The defendants appealed to the District Court, which reversed the trial court's order, holding that the plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case. The plaintiffs then filed the present writ petition challenging the appellate order. The High Court examined the scope of an appellate court's interference with a trial court's discretionary order on temporary injunction. It noted that the trial court had considered the pleadings and documents, including a sale deed and a survey plan, and had recorded findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The appellate court, without finding any perversity or error of law, simply substituted its own view. The High Court held that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction and that the trial court's order was just and proper. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate order, and restored the trial court's injunction order. The parties were directed to maintain status quo and cooperate for early disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Appeal against injunction - Scope of appellate court - The appellate court ought not to interfere with the trial court's discretion unless the order is perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, the trial court had granted injunction after considering the pleadings and documents, and the appellate court reversed it without finding any perversity. Held that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own view. (Paras 5-8) B) Property Law - Possession - Prima facie case - Balance of convenience - Irreparable loss - In a suit for declaration and injunction based on prior possession, the plaintiffs established a prima facie case by showing their possession over the suit property. The balance of convenience was in their favor as they would suffer irreparable loss if dispossessed during trial. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's order granting temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's order dated 18.2.2005, and restored the trial court's order dated 14.12.2004 granting temporary injunction. The parties were directed to maintain status quo and cooperate for early disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- appeal against injunction
- scope of appellate court
- concurrent findings
- no perversity
