Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
Mahmodur Rahman Choudhury Son of Late Mubeswar Ali Choudhury And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Noor Uddin Choudhury S/O. Late Sadiqur Rahman Choudhury and Anr. – Respondents
CRP(IO)/285/2022
Decided On : 20-03-2024
Specific Relief Act - Injunction - Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - [Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963] - The court discussed the application of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the principles for granting injunction. The court emphasized the discretionary power of the court in granting injunction and the limitations of appellate jurisdiction in interfering with such orders.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession after being dispossessed by the defendants. The trial court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and feature of the suit land. The appellate court set aside the injunction order based on the plaintiffs' lack of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate court had exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the injunction order solely based on the plaintiffs' lack of possession. It restored the injunction order and directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Issues: The main issues were the possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs, the grant of injunction by the trial court, and the appellate court's jurisdiction to interfere with the injunction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellate court's interference with the injunction order was unwarranted as it was within the trial court's equitable and discretionary power to grant the injunction. The appellate court's jurisdiction was limited to cases where the injunction order was unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational, or against well-settled principles for granting injunction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellate court's order and restored the injunction granted by the trial court. It directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an appellate order that set aside a trial court's injunction order. The trial court had granted an injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and feature of the suit land, which was subsequently overturned by the appellate court (!) (!) (!) .
The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, claim they have been in possession of the land since 1987 and were dispossessed forcefully on 10.12.2020. They filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking recovery of possession and an injunction to prevent the defendants from altering the land's nature and feature (!) (!) .
The trial court granted the injunction, but the appellate court set aside this order primarily on the ground that the petitioners were not in possession of the land at the time of the injunction application. The appellate court's interference was considered unwarranted because the order was within the trial court's discretionary and equitable powers (!) (!) (!) .
The High Court found that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by overturning the injunction solely based on the lack of possession, which was not a sufficient ground to do so. The High Court restored the trial court's order, emphasizing that the appellate court's jurisdiction is limited to cases where the order is unreasonable, arbitrary, or against well-established principles (!) .
The court also noted that the suit filed under Section 6 of the Act was initiated in 2021, and the plaintiffs had yet to produce evidence. The High Court directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit, preferably within seven months from the date of the order (!) .
The order passed by the trial court dated 28.10.2021 was restored, reaffirming the injunction restraining the defendants from changing the land's nature and feature until the final disposal of the suit (!) .
Overall, the High Court emphasized the discretionary nature of injunctions, the limited scope of appellate interference, and the importance of timely disposal of the suit to protect the rights of the parties involved (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 24.02.2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No.6/2021 whereby the learned First Appellate Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi had set aside the order of injunction dated 28.10.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the Munsiff No.2, Hailakandi.
2. From the materials on record, it reveals that it is the case of the Petitioners herein who were the plaintiffs that they were in possession of various plots of land as described in Schedule to the plaint. On 10.12.2020, the Defendants forcefully dispossessed the Plaintiffs and therefore on 04.01.2021, the suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short “the Act of 1963”) for recovery of possession. In the said suit which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.06/2021, an injunction application was filed seeking injunction to a limited extent that the Defendants should not change the nature and feature of the suit. The said application seeking injunction was registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.05/2021.
3. The learned Trial Court after hearing the other side and also taking into account the written objection, granted the injunction vide an order dated 28.10.2021 to the effect that the Defendants were restrained from changing the nature and feature of the suit land till the disposal of the suit.
4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred being Misc. Appeal No.06/2021 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi. In the said appeal, the learned First Appellate Court vide an order dated 24.02.2022 set aside the order of injunction on the ground that as the Plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land and as such the injunction order not to change the nature and feature of the suit land ought not to have been passed by the learned Trial Court. It is therefore against the said order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Misc. (J) Appeal No.06/2021, the present proceedings are initiated. This Court vide an order dated 25.11.2022 issued notice and directed that status quo be maintained in respect to the suit land.
5. Mr. M. J. Quadir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners had submitted that the Petitioners were dispossessed on 10.12.2020 and they have been in possession of the suit land since 1987. Therefore, as rights have been created in respect to the suit land, the Petitioners could not have been evicted in the manner not envisaged under law. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the circumstance, the nature and feature of the suit land is changed, it would cause irreparable loss, harm and injury to the Petitioners which the learned First Appellate Court did not consider. Further to that, the learned counsel submitted that the balance of convenience was also in favour of the Petitioners which the learned First Appellate Court failed to take into consideration.
6. Mr. S. K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the Respondents were in possession of the suit land all along on the basis of a purchase by constructing dwelling houses. He submitted that the entire case of the Petitioners is fictitious and based on imaginary cause of action. He further submitted that the suit is filed under the Act of 1963 and under such circumstances, the only question involved is whether the Petitioners/Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and whether the suit was filed within 6 (six) months from the date of dispossession. The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiffs/Petitioners are delaying the disposal of the suit.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as the Respondents and taken into account the above mentioned submissions.
8. From the materials on record, it transpires that the Respondents herein are in possession of the suit land. It is the specific case of the Petitioners
AI
The discretionary power of the court in granting injunction and the limitations of appellate jurisdiction in interfering with such orders.
The power of the Appellate Court in injunction proceedings is limited and can only be interfered with if the order is irrational, illegal, unreasonable, or in violation of well-settled principles for....
The correctness of the pleadings should be adjudicated after considering the evidence in the trial, and the trial court must consider the aspect of subsequent events when dealing with applications fo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suits for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 must be filed within six months of dispossession, and the title of the par....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of documentary evidence, lawful possession, and the conduct of the parties in determining the grant of injunction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's application for restoration of possession should be decided prior to the enforcement of the Trial Court's directions, and the....
The court affirmed that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is maintainable for recovery of possession despite the land being government property, emphasizing the protection of possessi....
The judgment establishes the principle that the period of limitation prescribed for instituting a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act must be adhered to, and fa....
Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, courts can only adjudicate possession issues and not title disputes in cases of dispossession within six months.
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
