Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vasudev Pandharinath Raikar and others, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts below, which allowed the application for interim injunction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs at Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No.1246 of 2016. The petitioners claimed a right of way from the respondents' property bearing Survey No.49/3A and 49/3C at Village Vadgaon Khurd. They had earlier filed a suit before the Mamlatdar's Court under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906, which was allowed, directing the respondents to clear the road. The respondents challenged that order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who dismissed the revision. Subsequently, the respondents filed a civil suit seeking an interim injunction, which was granted by the trial court and confirmed by the District Judge-14, Pune, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.12 of 2017. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited and that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse or without jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, and the interim injunction was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Right of Way - Concurrent Findings - The petitioners claimed a right of way over the respondents' property. The trial court granted an interim injunction in favor of the respondents, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court held that under Article 227, it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perversity or jurisdictional error. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below granting interim injunction in a suit for right of way.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact and the interim injunction granted by the courts below.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Mamlatdars' Courts Act
- 1906
- Section 5(2)
- right of way
- interim injunction
- concurrent findings of fact
- scope of supervisory jurisdiction
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 62
Civil Writ Petition No.1826 of 2018
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. Prathamesh B. Bhargude for the Petitioners; Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant, a/w. Mr. H.S. Kadam for the Respondents
Vasudev Pandharinath Raikar, Rushikesh Chandrakant Raikar, Swapnil Chandrakant Raikar
Manoj Mohan Dalvi, Janakiram Eknath Kanade, Prakash Kiran Navagire
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging concurrent findings of fact in an interim injunction matter regarding right of way.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order dated 23rd August 2017 passed by the District Judge-14, Pune, dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.12 of 2017 and confirming the interim injunction granted by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed a right of way over the respondents' property and alleged obstruction by the respondents.
Previous Decisions
The Mamlatdar's Court allowed the petitioners' suit under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, directing the respondents to clear the road. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the respondents' revision. The trial court granted interim injunction in favor of the respondents, which was confirmed by the District Judge.
Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with concurrent findings of fact granting interim injunction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they have a right of way and the courts below erred in granting interim injunction to the respondents.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that the petition lacks merit.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to reappreciating evidence or interfering with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes an exception to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, thereby allowing the application for interim injunction filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs at 'Exhibit-5' in Special Civil Suit No.1246 of 2016.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a suit before the Mamlatdar's Court under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, which was allowed. The respondents' revision before the Sub-Divisional Officer was dismissed. The respondents then filed a civil suit seeking interim injunction, which was granted by the trial court. The petitioners' appeal (Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.12 of 2017) was dismissed by the District Judge-14, Pune, on 23rd August 2017. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906: Section 5(2)
