Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in a civil suit, challenged the order dated 2nd May 2017 passed by the District Judge-2, Niphad, dismissing their Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.17 of 2017. The appeal was against the order dated 1st March 2017 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Niphad, below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.233 of 2016. The respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration that the suit properties were received by him in partition and were exclusively owned and possessed by him, along with a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from causing obstruction to his possession. The respondent claimed that the suit properties were ancestral joint family properties, and a partition was effected on 4th March 2009, with Mutation Entry No.8204 recording his name in the 7/12 Extract. He alleged that the petitioners were causing obstruction to his possession. The petitioners denied the partition and claimed joint possession. The trial court, after hearing both sides, granted a temporary injunction in favour of the respondent, restraining the petitioners from obstructing his possession. The appellate court confirmed this order. The High Court, in the present writ petition under Article 227, examined the records and found that the courts below had correctly appreciated the material, including mutation entries and revenue records, to conclude that the respondent had a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. The High Court held that the impugned order did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227. The petition was dismissed 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 declaration and injunction based on partition, the plaintiff claimed exclusive possession of suit properties. The trial court granted injunction restraining defendants from obstructing plaintiff's possession, which was upheld by the appellate court. The High Court held that the courts below had correctly appreciated the material on record, including mutation entries and revenue records, to conclude that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. The petition under Article 227 was dismissed as no perversity or jurisdictional error was found. (Paras 1-11) B) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court's Powers - Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against an order granting or refusing injunction, is not required to write a detailed judgment but must apply its mind to the facts and law. In this case, the appellate court's order was found to be reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence, hence not liable to be interfered with. (Paras 8-10) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity in findings. It does not act as an appellate court. The impugned order being neither perverse nor without jurisdiction, the petition was dismissed. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff suffers from any perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the courts below granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- partition
- joint family property
- mutation entry
- possession
- appellate court's limited scope
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
