Vidya Niketan Society and Another vs East India Cotton Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiffs having failed to secure temporary injunction from both the courts below have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 18.08.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by the trial Court and judgment dated 02.04.2013 Annexure P-2 passed by the lower appellate Court declining to grant temporary injunction to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant respondent no.1 (a company) handed over possession of primary school building and Shiv Mandir area measuring approximately 850 square yards (suit property) to plaintiff no.1 society which is running plaintiff no.2 school and also managing the Mandir. The plaintiffs sought temporary injunction restraining defendants no.2 to 7 from grabbing the suit property and from interfering in possession of plaintiffs thereon and from dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom. Temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit was claimed by the plaintiffs by moving separate application.

Defendant no.2 to 7 contested the suit and application for temporary injunction and pleaded that defendant no.1 has already lost in the previous suit and first appeal although regular second appeal is pending in this court. Defendant no.1-company had already closed its operations. Plaintiffs are figureheads of defendant no.1. Defendant no.2 is in possession of the suit property and has also obtained temporary injunction in a suit filed by defendant no.2 against Onkar Mal & another.

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that present plaintiffs are not party to the suit which has been instituted by defendant no.2 against Onkar Mal and J. N. Singh and therefore, temporary injunction granted in the said case has no bearing on the present case. There is considerable merit in this contention. Present plaintiffs being not party to the said suit, any order passed therein can have no bearing on the rights of the present plaintiffs.

Counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners also contended that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and therefore, temporary injunction should be granted. The contention cannot be accepted. Admittedly, plaintiffs'' predecessor in interest-defendant no.1 has lost in the previous suit and first appeal and defendant no.1 has preferred RSA No. 4757 of 1999 which is pending in this Court but there is no interim order in favour of defendant no.1. Consequently, the plaintiffs as successors-in-interest of defendant no.1 cannot claim to be in possession of the suit property. On the contrary, stand of the contesting defendants that the plaintiffs have been set up by defendant no.1 is prima facie borne out. The plaintiffs did not also refer to the previous litigation by their predecessor-in-interest-defendant no.1. Thus plaintiffs have miserably filed to make out necessary ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury for grant of temporary injunction. On the contrary, plaintiffs have indulged in this second round of frivolous litigation at the instance of defendant no.1. Consequently, plaintiffs have to be subjected to costs.

It may also be mentioned that after the suit property was allegedly given to the plaintiffs by defendant no.1, admittedly a magnificent Vaishno Devi Mandir has been added in the suit property and plaintiffs do not claim to have added the same. Consequently, construction of the said new Mandir in the suit premises by defendant no.2 clearly depicts that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that temporary injunction has been rightly declined to the petitioners by the courts below. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned orders of the lower courts so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is not only meritless but is completely frivolous and is abuse of process of law and therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs so as to curb such frivolous litigation. Resultantly the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court. If the costs amount is not deposited within one month from today, the case shall be listed for this purpose. Nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as expression of opinion on merits of the suit.