SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Bom) 507

R.M.LODHA
Govindbhai Ramjibhai Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Gokulchand Juthalal Agrawal & another – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What is the entitlement of a settled trespasser to seek temporary injunction? What are the rights of a defendant to pursue dispossession of a plaintiff who is a settled trespasser?

Key Points: - The court held that even a settled trespasser can seek a temporary injunction to protect their possession until dispossessed in accordance with the law [judgement_subject]. - The appellate court's decision to vacate the temporary injunction was quashed (!) (!) . - The original temporary injunction order was restored (!) (!) . - The defendant was not precluded from pursuing their remedy for dispossession of the plaintiff before the competent forum in accordance with the law [judgement_subject] (!) . - The plaintiff filed a revision application against the order vacating the temporary injunction (!) . - The trial court had initially granted a status quo order, finding a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff [4000089730001]. - The appellate court had tentatively found the plaintiff to be in unauthorized occupation and thus a trespasser, therefore not entitled to an injunction [4000089730002]. - The court found the plaintiff to be in settled possession, even if as a trespasser or unauthorized occupant (!) . - The defendant's counsel submitted that the defendant would maintain the status quo until an appropriate order or decree was obtained from a competent court (!) . - It was made clear that the defendant could prosecute an appropriate remedy for dispossessing the plaintiff in accordance with law (!) .

What is the entitlement of a settled trespasser to seek temporary injunction?

What are the rights of a defendant to pursue dispossession of a plaintiff who is a settled trespasser?


JUDGMENT - Lodha R.M., J.:—The plaintiff Govindbhai has filed the present revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure aggrieved by the order dated 14-9-1991 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Amravati, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1990, Gokulchand v. Govindbhai and another whereby he vacated the temporary injunction order granted by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati on 1-11-1990 Reg. Civil Suit No. 368 of 1990.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, it may be observed that in the suit for declaration and injunction filed by plaintiff on 28-2-1990 relating to Nazul Plot No. 285/1, Sheet No. 81-D within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Amravati, admeasuring 120 sq.ft. the trial Court after holding that the plaintiff's possession cannot be said to be or deemed to be a possession as trespasser or in the capacity of as an encroacher over the disputed land and also finding prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff-applicant, directed the defendants to maintain status quo until disposal of the suit.

3. Aggrieved by the order of status quo, the defendant No. 2 Gokulchand filed an appeal before the




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top