The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the well-settled principles of grant or refusal of injunction.

JUDGMENT - BOBDE S.A., J.:---Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2. This petition is directed against the order dated 8-8-2002 by which the learned Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, declined to grant interim injunction to the petitioners restraining the respondent/Municipal Council from acting on the notice for eviction served upon them under section 179(5) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965.

3. The petitioners approached the Civil Court. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Dn., Bhadrawati, found that the petitioners to be trespasser and having no right to occupy the land. On the application of well settled principles of grant or refusal of injunction, the learned Civil Judge refused injunction to the petitioners. The petitioners were found to have made random encroachment on the side of the road causing inconvenience and hardship to the public. The petitioners then carried an appeal to the Court of District Judge, Chandrapur. In the appeal they preferred an application for interim injunction which has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. By the impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge found that the encroachment made by the petitioners was removed in the drive in the year 1999 by the Municipal Council. Thereafter the petitioners had again encroached on that land and started doing business by erecting temporary structures on that place. The learned Additional District Judge also rejected the petitioners contention that merely because they are paying the market tax of Rs. 2/- they do not have any right to the land. The learned Additional District Judge has, therefore, concurred with the finding of the Civil Judge, Junior Dn., and refused the interim injunction sought for. The appeal is, however, pending.

4. Mr. Khajanchi, learned Counsel, for the petitioners submitted that while refusing interim injunction to the petitioners, the learned Additional District Judge has given a finding on all the points which really ought to have been given at the time of final decision of the appeal against the refusal of injunction. Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel, for the respondent/Municipal Council rightly submits that it was the petitioners who invited these findings while seeking injunction. The learned Additional District Judge was, therefore, bound to consider the grant or refusal of injunction sought by the petitioners on the known principle for dealing with such application for injunction.

5. Having considered the question, it appears Mr. Shelat is right in supporting the order of the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge had to consider the grant or refusal of injunction on the basis of well settled principle. That necessarily involved consideration of the existence of a prima facie right in plaintiffs' favour, the balance of convenience between the parties and the irreparable injury that may be caused to the plaintiffs if the injunction is withheld. The impugned order is slightly more elaborate than was strictly necessary. I do not see any illegality on that count.

6. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the respondent has raised the question of proprietary of the petitioner's invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such matter. Since after the curtailment of the jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by a recent amendment brought into force on 1-7-2002, the number of petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decisions of the Civil Court has appreciably increased, I thought it proper to hear the matter on this point at some length. This Court, therefore, requested Mr. B.R. Gavai, learned Government Pleader, to act as amicus curiae. The learned amicus has also addressed this Court on the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document