Back
High Court of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
Jitesh Pandey
Vs.
Smt. Urmilata Sinha & Ors.
C.O. No. 1444 of 1999
Decided on : 13th October, 1999
INJUNCTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 4, CPC - AD INTERIM INJUNCTION - APPEAL - SCOPE OF APPELLATE COURT'S REVIEW - COURT'S POWER TO CONSIDER NEW MATERIAL - CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSION OF NEW MATERIAL - ORDER 41 RULE 27, CPC - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, and an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the suit property. The trial court granted an ad interim order of status quo. Defendant No. 3 appealed the order and obtained a stay of the operation of the order. The first appellate court set aside the trial court's order, holding that the plaintiff did not apply for temporary injunction in good faith, based on documents filed by Defendant No. 3 along with the application for stay.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the first appellate court acted illegally and with material irregularity in taking into consideration the materials placed before it by Defendant No. 3 in holding that the plaintiff did not come with clean hands. The court held that the scope of investigation in an appeal against an ad interim injunction is limited to whether the trial court was justified in granting the order on the basis of the materials before it.
Issues: 1. Whether the first appellate court erred in taking into consideration new material produced by Defendant No. 3 in the appeal against the ad interim injunction. 2. Whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An appellate court in an appeal against an ad interim injunction is limited to considering whether the trial court was justified in granting the order on the basis of the materials before it. 2. A party cannot rely on new documents in an appeal against an ad interim injunction without complying with the formalities required under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The plaintiff had a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction as he had made out a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience and inconvenience was in his favor.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the first appellate court and held that the trial court rightly granted an ad interim order of status quo.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Scope of Appellate Review: An appellate court reviewing an appeal against an ad interim injunction is limited to assessing whether the trial court was justified in granting the order based on the materials available at that time. The appellate court does not typically consider new evidence unless specific procedural conditions are met (!) (!) .
Use of New Material: An appellate court cannot rely on new documents or evidence produced after the trial court’s decision unless the formalities under applicable procedural rules are followed. Specifically, the formalities required under relevant rules must be observed for new evidence to be considered (!) (!) .
Good Faith in Filing Temporary Injunction: The court emphasized that a party seeking a temporary injunction must act in good faith. The consideration of documents suggesting bad faith or collusion may influence the court’s decision, but such documents must be properly introduced and considered within the procedural framework (!) (!) .
Procedural Remedies for Adverse Orders: A person aggrieved by an ad interim order of temporary injunction has multiple remedies, including filing objections, applying under specific procedural rules for variation, or appealing to a higher court. However, these remedies require adherence to procedural formalities and the scope of review is limited (!) (!) .
Limitations on Appellate Power: The appellate court's power to take into account subsequent events or documents is constrained. It is primarily tasked with assessing whether the trial court's decision was justified based on the materials before it at the time of the original order (!) (!) .
Final Decision on the Case: The court found that the first appellate court acted illegally and irregularly by considering new materials and by not limiting its review to the justification of the original order. Consequently, the order of the first appellate court was set aside, and the trial court’s original order granting an ad interim status quo was reinstated (!) (!) .
Procedural Directions: The court directed the opposite parties to file written objections and/or applications under relevant procedural rules within specified timeframes. The trial court was instructed to dispose of the application for temporary injunction promptly, independently of this order (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the procedural limitations and principles governing appeals against temporary injunctions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural formalities and the restricted scope of appellate review in such matters.
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.
This revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and is directed against order dated June 5, 1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Misc. Appeal No. 230 of 1999 thereby setting aside order dated April 19, 1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 5th Court, Alipore in Trial Suit No. 64 of 1999.
2. The petitioner herein filed a suit being Title Suit No. 64 of 1999 in the 5th Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alipore praying, inter alia, for a decree for declaration that he is a monthly tenant at will of the north-eastern portion of the ground floor of the suit premises as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the opposite parties from disturbing his peaceful possession in the suit property. In the said suit, the petitioner further prayed for a decree for declaration that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had no right or authority to evict the petitioner otherwise than in due course of law. A further decree for permanent injunction restraining the opposite party No.3 and/or his men and agent from doing any wrongful act to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property was also prayed.
3. In connection with the aforesaid suit, the petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the opposite parties from interfering with the possession of the petitioner and his family in the suit property.
4. It may be mentioned here that in the schedule of the plaint as well as the application for temporary injunction, the suit property was described as one room measuring more or less 1000 sq.ft of north-east portion of the ground floor covered space of premises No. 11A, Bourn field Row, P.S. Ekbalpur, Calcutta with common bath and privy for residential purpose.
5. The learned trial Judge on April 19, 1999 by Order No.2 issued notice upon the opposite parties to show-cause why the prayer of the petitioner for temporary injunction should not be granted and at the time passed an ad interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo as it stood on that date till May 18, 1999.
6. Instead of showing any cause of filing any application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the opposite party No.3 preferred a Misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 230 of 1999 before the learned District Judge at Alipore and immediately after the admission of the said appeal, he prayed for stay of the operation of order dated April 18, 1999 before the learned District Judge although the same was going to expire just after four days.
7. The learned District Judge immediately after admission of the said M/s. Appeal granted an ad interim order of stay of operation of the order impugned in the said Misc. Appeal.
8. Being dissatisfied, the present petitioner moved a revisional application before this court being C.O. No. 1390 of 1999 which was disposed of by this court on May 20, 1999 thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned District Judge and the learned first appellate court was directed to hear out the Misc. Appeal within a week.
9. Pursuant to the direction given by this court, the learned first appellate court below by the order impugned herein has disposed of the said Misc. Appeal thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Judge.
10. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has come up in revision.
11. It appears from the order passed by the learned first appellate court below that in setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Judge, the learned first appellate court below took into consideration various documents filed before the said appellate court indicating that a litigation was going on between opposite party No.3 and his brother on one side and the opposite party No.2 and another on other side over the self-same property and that the opposite
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
