Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in a civil suit, challenged the rejection of their application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The respondent, original plaintiff, had filed a suit for injunction simpliciter against the petitioners, alleging encroachment. The trial court rejected the temporary injunction application on 29.09.2016, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The petitioners argued that the trial court's order was perverse and that they had established their possession. The High Court, however, found that the trial court's order was based on appreciation of affidavits and documents, and the finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case was a finding of fact. The court noted that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff must establish his possession and that the defendants are not in possession. The trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case was not perverse. The High Court held that it would not interfere with a discretionary order unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - In a suit for injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff must establish his possession and that the defendants are not in possession. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, based on appreciation of affidavits and documents, is a finding of fact and not perverse. The High Court will not interfere with such discretionary order unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 2-4)
B) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Discretionary Orders - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity. A finding of fact based on material on record, even if another view is possible, does not warrant interference. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was perverse and warranted interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Injunction simpliciter
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Possession
- Perversity
- Interference with discretionary order
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (02) 27
Writ Petition No. 11390 of 2016
Mr. Amol S. Sawant for the petitioners, Mr. V.P. Latange for the respondent
Dnyandeo Vithal Salke, Prabhakar Rambhau Raskar, Madhukar Bhikaji Dighe
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for injunction simpliciter
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (original defendants) sought to challenge the rejection of their application for temporary injunction against the respondent (original plaintiff).
Filing Reason
The respondent filed a suit for injunction simpliciter alleging encroachment by the petitioners.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected the temporary injunction application (Exh.5) on 29.09.2016 on the ground that the original plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case.
Issues
Whether the trial court's rejection of the temporary injunction application was perverse and warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the trial court's order was perverse and that they had established their possession.
The respondent supported the trial court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff must establish his possession and that the defendants are not in possession. The trial court's finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, based on appreciation of affidavits and documents, is a finding of fact and not perverse. The High Court will not interfere with such discretionary order under Article 227 unless it is perverse or based on no evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
Admittedly, the suit has been filed for injunction simplicitor and there is no prayer for removal of encroachment.
In a suit for injunction simplicitor, the plaintiff has to establish his possession and also that the defendants are not in possession.
The trial court has considered the affidavits and documents and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case. This is a finding of fact.
Unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence, this Court would not interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial court.
Procedural History
The respondent filed a civil suit for injunction simpliciter against the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application (Exh.5) for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The trial court rejected the application on 29.09.2016. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
- Constitution of India: Article 227
