Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1403
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Vinod – Appellant
Versus
Punamchand & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 459 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2022
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Injunctions
Act Referred
Headnote
Injunction - Civil Procedure - The court affirmed the trial court's decision to reject the petitioner's application for injunction, holding that the relief sought by the petitioner as an interim injunction would amount to final relief if granted, and therefore cannot be granted as an interim relief.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction and applied for temporary injunction. The trial court rejected the petitioner's application for injunction, which was affirmed by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought by the petitioner as an interim injunction would amount to final relief if granted, and therefore cannot be granted as an interim relief. The court did not find any illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to an injunction against the defendant for creating nuisance and air pollution through the operation of bhattis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief sought by the petitioner as an interim injunction would amount to final relief if granted, and therefore cannot be granted as an interim relief.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.
Mr. Ms Pareek, Through Vc, for the Appellant.
ORDER
1. The writ petition in hand lays challenge to the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2 Nohar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') vide which the order dated 20.05.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge has been affirmed (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court').
2. Briefly narrated facts are that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction along with an application for granting of temporary injunction.
3. Petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') came to be rejected by the trial Court, inter alia, deciding the ingredients of injunction against the petitioner - plaintiff.
4. The present petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order before the appellate Court which rejected petitioner's appeal, inter alia, affording the finding recorded by the trial Court and observing that if the suit filed by the plaintiff is ultimately allowed, he shall be compensated appropriately by way of payment of damages.
5. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the Commissioner report and pointed out that the Commissioner has given clear finding that the defendant has been operating bhattis while carrying out his business of sweets and snacks. He, therefore, submitted that the nuisance and air pollution is writ at large and prayed that the petitioner is entitled for injunction.
6. Both the Courts below have continually held the ingredients of injunction against the petitioner.
7. That apart, the relief which the petitioner is claiming as an interim injunction i.e., the defendant be restrained from using bhattis and creating nuisance, would amount to final relief if granted.
8. The Court cannot grant interim relief which is in the nature of a final relief.
9. This Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned for which, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
10. Stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.
