Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shoeb Ahmed A.K.Bardi, filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 2.8.2012 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Kalyan, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.32 of 2011. The appeal arose from Regular Civil Suit No.553 of 2010, where the trial court had rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction on 29.3.3011 (apparently a typo for 2011). The Appellate Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order. The High Court, upon examining the orders, found that the Appellate Court had recorded inconsistent findings: in paragraph 11, it observed that the dispute could not be resolved without measurements of the land, but in paragraph 12, it found that the plaintiff was in possession based on revenue entries. These findings were contradictory and could not stand. Additionally, the Appellate Court failed to consider the findings recorded by the trial court in its order dated 29.3.3011. Consequently, the High Court quashed the Appellate Court's order and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Court for fresh decision, directing that the appeal be decided within three months from the date of first appearance of the parties. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Inconsistent Findings - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Appellate Court recorded inconsistent findings by observing that measurements were necessary to resolve the dispute but also finding that the plaintiff was in possession based on revenue entries. The High Court held that such inconsistent findings cannot stand and the Appellate Court failed to consider the trial court's reasoning. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh decision with status quo. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court's order allowing the appeal against rejection of temporary injunction was sustainable given inconsistent findings and failure to consider trial court's order.
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed. The judgment and order dated 2.8.2012 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1 Kalyan allowing Misc. Civil Appeal No.32 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court to decide Misc. Civil Appeal No.32 of 2011 keeping in view the observations made by this Court. The appeal is directed to be decided within three months from the date of first appearance of the parties. During the pendency of the appeal, parties shall maintain status quo. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appellate court must not record inconsistent findings
- Appellate court must consider trial court's reasoning
- Remand for fresh decision with status quo
