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

2021 Supreme(HP) 366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Rambhaj & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kashmir Singh & Ors. - Respondents
CMPMO No. 19 of 2021
Decided On : 06-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
Ashok K Tyagi, Advocate, Ashwani K Sharma, Advocate, Ishan Sharma, Advocate, Satyen Vaidya, Advocate

The need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for granting injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Headnote:

Injunction - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs sought injunction to restrain the defendants from raising construction on the suit land. The defendants contested the suit claiming exclusive possession of the property.

Finding of the Court:

The learned District Judge allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs and set aside the order of the trial court. However, the High Court set aside the District Judge's order and affirmed the trial court's decision to reject the plaintiffs' injunction request.

Issues: Dispute over possession and construction rights on the suit land.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for granting injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Final Decision: The High Court set aside the District Judge's order and affirmed the trial court's decision to reject the plaintiffs' injunction request.

JUDGMENT

Satyen Vaidya, J. - Petitioners, by way of instant petition, have challenged order dated 30.12.2020 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2020, whereby the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Mandi in CMA No.205-VI/2020 in application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "Code") has been reversed.

2. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs before Trial Court and petitioners are defendants, therefore, for clarity the parties herein shall be referred by the same status as they held before learned Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of present petition are as under:-

3.1 Civil Suit bearing No.132/18/14, filed by plaintiffs, is pending before learned Civil Judge (Court No.2) Mandi with prayer to pass a decree to the following effect:-

a) A decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the vacant possession of the suit property by demolishing the construction, which they have raised during the pendency of the earlier suit/review petition, as is marked A-1, A-1, A-1, A-1 in the rough site plan may kindly be passed.

b) A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants not to interfere and place debris and stones upon the suit land pertaining to portion B-1, B-1, B-1, B-1 may kindly be passed and a decree for mandatory injunction for removing the said debris and stones.

c) A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction directing the defendants not to throw the kitchen and bathroom waters on the suit land and to make arrangements of kitchen and bathroom water of their own land.

3.2 Plaintiffs have described suit property comprised in Khewat No.73/71, Khatauni No.79/77, Khasra No.130 measuring 5-0-05 Bighas, situated in Muhal Hart, Patwar Circle Samrahan/72, Illaqua Tungal, Tehsil Kotli, Distt. Mandi H.P, which undisputedly is 'Abadi Deh' land. Plaintiffs claim possession of more than 0-15-0 bighas out of the suit land, on which ancestral house of plaintiffs is stated to exist. In addition to the house, plaintiffs also claim to be in possession of vacant land measure 20 feet in width and 60 feet in length towards the back side of their house.

3.3 Suit land was subject matter of earlier suit also filed by plaintiffs against defendants which was subsequently withdrawn by plaintiffs on 01.08.2014 from the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. I, Mandi with liberty to file fresh on the same cause of action.

3.4 Specific case of plaintiffs is that during the pendency of the earlier suit, defendants raised construction of a single storey building measuring 10 feet in width and 40 feet in length identified as "A-1, A-1, A-1, A-1" in the rough plan filed with plaint. This structure is said to have been raised by defendants on part of land measuring 20 feet in width and 60 feet in length, claimed by plaintiffs to be in their possession.

3.5 The plaintiffs have accordingly sought a decree of mandatory injunction against defendants directing them to restore the vacant spossession of suit property by demolition of structure. In addition, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been claimed restraining defendants not to interfere in the remaining portion of above noted vacant land denoted by "B-1, B-1, B-1, B-1" in the rough site plan prepared by plaintiffs and also restraining the defendants from throwing kitchen and bathroom water on the suit land.

3.6. The plaintiffs on 02.12.2020 instituted CMA No.205-VI/2020 in the above noted suit with following prayer:-

"It is therefore, prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, this application may kindly be allowed and the respondents, their agents and servants, kith & kins, labour and relatives may kindly be restrained through an ad-interim injunction order not to raise forcible construction of their second storey on the land measuring about 10 ft. in width a

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 Back to top