AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep K. Shinde, J
In March, 2022, Petitioners/plaintiffs, instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 19/2022 for declaration, permanent injunction and consequential reliefs under section 35, 27 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and moved an application for temporary injunction. Pending application, the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.3.2022 directed defendants, not to park their vehicles on the open Space at the entry of the shop and house of plaintiffs, till the next date of hearing. It was an ex-parte ad-interim order. Whereafter on 7.5.2022, ad-interim relief was confirmed. The learned Trial Court while granting temporary injunction, recorded the finding that plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and further the balance of convenience tilts in their favour and would suffer irreparable loss in case relief was refused. That order was carried into Misc. Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2022, before the District Judge, Mapusa Goa.
The Learned Appellate Court reversed the order of the trial Court, on the ground that the suit open space in which defendants were parking their vehicles and allegedly obstructing the plaintiffs’ access to their shop was owned by Raghuraj V. Deshprabhu and that father of defendants were tenants in the suit open space, a part of property surveyed under no. 376/42. Accordingly, the appellate Court was of the opinion that defendants having shown their right over the suit open space, they cannot be injuncted from parking their vehicles. Obviously, appellate Court did not adhered to law regulating grant of injunction. The appellate Court, interfered with the exercise of discretion of the trial Court, and substituted its own discretion, without pointing out, or showing that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, or that trial Court has, ignored the settled principles of law, regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction.
In that view of the matter, case is made out for issuing notice to the respondents returnable on 5.9.2022.
Be it noted, that soon after institution of suit by order dated 24.3.2022, the defendants, were restrained from parking their vehicles on the suit open space, and that order was in force till 6.7.2022, a date on which the appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondents.
In consideration of these facts, till the returnable date, the defendants shall not park their vehicles on the suit open space and/or obstruct the plaintiffs' access to their shop and house.
Petitioners to serve the respondents by humdast before the returnable date along with a copy of this order.
Stand over to 5.9.2022, for further consideration.