Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shivaram Narayan Gatkul and others, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the order dated 30/03/2016 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Paranda, in Regular Civil Suit No. 45/2013. The suit was filed by the petitioners seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents, who were family members and relatives, restraining them from interfering with the petitioners' possession over agricultural land situated at Khanapur, Taluka Paranda, District Osmanabad. Along with the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for a temporary injunction. The trial court, after hearing both sides, rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was not in their favor. The court also recorded a finding that the petitioners were not in possession of the suit property. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners approached the High Court. The High Court, after perusing the impugned order and hearing the counsel, observed that the trial court had considered the evidence on record and recorded findings of fact. The High Court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. It can interfere only if the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, exceeded its jurisdiction, or committed a manifest error of law resulting in grave injustice. In the present case, the High Court found no such error. The trial court's findings were based on material on record and were not perverse. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order. The court did not award any costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The petitioners sought injunction to restrain respondents from interfering with their possession over suit land. Trial court found that petitioners failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience was not in their favor. High Court held that findings of fact by trial court cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse or without jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court reiterated that Article 227 is a supervisory jurisdiction and not an appellate one. Interference is warranted only if the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, exceeded its jurisdiction, or committed a manifest error of law resulting in grave injustice. (Paras 8-10) C) Property Law - Possession - Suit for Injunction - The dispute pertained to agricultural land. Trial court recorded a finding that the petitioners were not in possession of the suit property. High Court declined to re-appreciate evidence and upheld the trial court's order. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with the order passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Paranda, rejecting the petitioners' application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Paranda, dated 30/03/2016, rejecting the petitioners' application for temporary injunction. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory
- not appellate
- findings of fact by trial court on possession and prima facie case cannot be interfered with unless perverse or without jurisdiction
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC - injunction - possession - prima facie case - balance of convenience - irreparable loss
