IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Amar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Parkasho Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
1. Present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.03.2024, passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2-D/XIV/2024, by the Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.
2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the impugned order appended along with the present petition.
3. The present petitioner is plaintiff before the trial Court. The suit land is admitted to be joint inter se the parties. The same has not been partitioned. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court is that respondent/defendant with a view to grab the most valuable portion of the land is in hell-bent to uproot the ancestral house, cut the trees standing thereupon and to raise construction thereupon.
4. As per the respondent/defendant, vide Will dated 18.04.1992, one Shridhar, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties had willed an old abadi/house along with cow shed in favour of the respondent/defendant and similarly Shridhar had willed land in favour of the plaintiff and his brother, whereupon they had constructed their house. Mutation No.48 qua Will dated 18.04.1992 was sanctioned on 18.11.1992. The said mut
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty and does not extend to re-evaluating evidence or legal errors unless they result in a m....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting conclusions of lower courts.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not correcting errors of law or fact.
Principle of equity, which is cardinal while deciding the grant of equitable relief of injunction, has duly been considered.
The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where there is a gross failure of justice or grave injustice. Th....
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their authority, not to correct errors of law or fact.
Suppression of revenue proceedings setting aside relied-upon mutation constitutes unclean hands, disentitling temporary injunction; High Court under Article 227 will not re-appreciate evidence or int....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of basing judgments on the material available on record and avoiding perversity or illegality in the decision-making process.
The court established that for a temporary injunction, a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience must all be satisfied.
The discretionary nature of powers under Article 227 and the limited scope of interference by the High Court in matters where there is no patent perversity or gross failure of justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.