Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (formerly Cadbury India Company Ltd), filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 30th August 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Vadgaon Maval, Pune, in MCA No. 18 of 2024. That appeal had been preferred by the Petitioner-Plaintiff against an order dated 12th July 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Vadgaon Maval, Pune, in RCS No. 309 of 2023, whereby the trial court had rejected the Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. The Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with its right of access to its property. The Plaintiff claimed that it had a right of way over the Defendants' land, which it had been using for decades for ingress and egress to its factory. The Defendants had allegedly obstructed the road, preventing the Plaintiff's vehicles from passing. The trial court and the appellate court both rejected the injunction application, holding that the Plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the lower courts had misappreciated the evidence and failed to consider the Plaintiff's long-standing use of the road. The High Court held that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in its favor, and irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders, and granted the temporary injunction as prayed for.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain Defendants from obstructing access to its property. The trial court and appellate court rejected the application. The High Court held that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience was in its favor, and irreparable loss would be caused if injunction was not granted. The courts below had misappreciated the evidence and failed to consider the Plaintiff's long-standing use of the road. (Paras 1-29) B) Property Law - Right of Way - Easement - The Plaintiff claimed a right of way over the Defendants' land based on long use and necessity. The High Court found that the Plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of an easement by prescription and necessity, and the Defendants' denial was not supported by sufficient evidence. (Paras 10-25) C) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to correct the grave error committed by the lower courts in rejecting the injunction application. The impugned orders were set aside and the injunction was granted. (Paras 26-29)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's right of access to its property.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders of the trial court and appellate court, and granted the temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's right of access to its property.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- right of way
- easement
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
