AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 240 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.09.2007 passed by learned trial Court [Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Kotdwar] in Original Suit No. 37 of 2006. By the said order, the Temporary Injunction Application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was allowed.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed a Misc. Civil Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C., which was registered as Misc. Civil
Appeal No. 34 of 2007. The said appeal was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar, vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2011.
Feeling aggrieved by these two orders, petitioners have approached this Court.
It is settled position in law that temporary injunction is a discretionary relief and this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by learned Courts below, unless such exercise is patently illegal.
I have gone through both the orders passed by learned Courts below. In the present case, learned Courts below have considered the matter in great
detail and have recorded findings on the three relevant factors, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury before
granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the orders passed by learned Courts below.
In such view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.