Hitendra Kumar Shukla vs D.R.M.

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

This petition is directed against the order of the trial court dated 8.8.2013, whereby application of petitioners preferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, is rejected. The order of appellate court dated 16.4.2014 is also under challenge, whereby the miscellaneous application preferred under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC, is rejected.

Shri Bohre submits that the orders of courts below are bad in law. The document at page 29 is not considered by the court below in its correct spirit.

I have heard him at length.

A bare perusal of the trial court''s order shows that the injunction is refused by the trial court on the basis of judgment of this Court, reported in State of M.P. and Another Vs. Shri Govind Gaushala Datia and Another, . In the said case, this Court opined as under:-

"A prima facie case made out and ingredients of irreparable loss and balance of convenience were also existing in favour of the plaintiff-But the intervening public interest (construction of an Air Port on the suit property), is likely to be hampered, if the temporary injunction is granted-The plaintiff was not entitled for grant of any temporary injunction."

The appellate court followed the ratio of said judgment. In the present case, the public interest was related with laying and widening of railway line. Considering that public interest, the court below has declined to grant injunction.

In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned by the court below are based on the judgment of this Court and are plausible reasons. The public interest is a relevant consideration for grant of injunction. Thus, I am unable to hold that the orders passed by the courts below are either without jurisdiction or illegal.

The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Even an erroneous order is not required to be corrected in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. The basic purpose of exercising the said jurisdiction is to keep the courts below within the bounds of their authority. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. This view is taken in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, There is no ingredient on which interference can be made in this petition.

Interference is declined. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs.