Ranveer Singh and Another vs Ranjeet Singh and Others

Sheel Nagu, Judge

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the appellate order passed in MCA No. 8/2012 on 20/07/2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 against the grant of temporary injunction by the trial Court in a Suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been allowed thereby reversing order of temporary injunction granted to the plaintiffs / petitioners by the trial court. Learned senior counsel for petitioners is heard on the question of admission.

Learned senior counsel contends by citing the decision in the case of Durg Transport Co. Private Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Authority and Others, that the appellate court has not assigned any reason while reversing the order of the trial court granting temporary injunction. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for petitioners / plaintiffs that temporary injunction was rightly granted with an ultimate object of preserving the suit property to be available for execution of the decree which may be passed in future.

A perusal of the impugned order, paragraphs No. 11 and 12 in particular, indicates that first appellate court found that the trail Court while ignoring the all important aspects of partition of the agricultural land in question had failed to see that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish their clear possession over the suit property. The appellant court held that despite there being no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs as regards possession, the order for temporary injunction had been passed by the trial court. The first appellant court further held that the trial court has failed to see that in the background of partition between the rival parties which was not disturbed by any revenue court it cannot be said that the property in question was of joint ownership of the rival parties.

As regards the judicial pronouncement on which reliance has been placed in the case of Durg Transport Co. (supra), it is seen that the said case pertained to an order passed by the appellate authority under the Motor Vehicle Act which nowhere lays down that even if a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff is not found to exist, temporary injunction ought to be granted. In the instant case, the trial court in the absence of existence of prima facie case granted temporary injunction which was rightly set aside by the First Appellate Court. Thus the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of Durg Transport Co.(supra) is of no avail to the petitioner.

A scrutiny of the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court which upturned the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court, this court is of the considered opinion that due and sufficient reasons have been assigned by the First Appellate Court in reversing the order of trial court which do not, in the limited supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, call for interference, as no jurisdictional limits set by the law have been transgressed by the First Appellate Court while passing the impugned order. In view of the above, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.