Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Javed Iqbal Wani, J.
Mohd. Ali & Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
Sanjay Kumar & Ors. - Respondent
CR No. 85 of 2020
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Supervisory Jurisdiction - Land Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, Order 39 - The court discussed the scope of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the discretionary nature of granting injunctions and the need for full and fair disclosure of facts by the parties. The court highlighted the principle that a party seeking injunction must come with clean hands and not suppress material facts. The judgment referenced the cases of Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Coco Cola & Ors., Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs Rajindra Shankar Patil, and Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs Chhabi Nath & Ors. to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to set aside an order passed by the Appellate Court in a land dispute case. The respondents had filed multiple suits and appeals to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents had deliberately concealed material facts before the Appellate Court, and their conduct did not entitle them to an equitable relief of injunction. The court exercised supervisory jurisdiction and set aside the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the respondents and restoring the order of the Trial Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Appellate Court was right in allowing the appeal filed by the respondents against the order of the Trial Court and granting interim relief to the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary nature of granting injunctions, the need for full and fair disclosure of facts by the parties, and the principle that a party seeking injunction must come with clean hands and not suppress material facts.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, the appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed, and the order of the Trial Court was restored.
JUDGEMENT/ORDER :
1. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is being invoked by the petitioner herein for setting aside order dated 27.11.2020 (for short, “impugned order”) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge Udhampur (Appellate Court) in Miscellaneous appeal titled as, “Sanjay Kumar & Anr. Vs. Liyaqat Ali & Ors.”.
2. Facts emerging from the petition would reveal that the father of the petitioners herein namely Anayatullah came into possession of land measuring 9 ½ Marlas under Khasra No. 761 min situated at village Omara, Udhampur pursuant to agreement to sell dated 13.05.1995, allegedly executed between father of the petitioners and father of the respondents 1 and 2 and his real brother, namely, Dhani Ram, followed by agreement to sell dated 29.09.2007 executed between father of the petitioners and father of the respondents 1 and 2 and followed by another agreement to sell dated 07.01.2010 executed between the father of the petitioners and father of respondents 1 and 2.
3. A suit for declaration an injunction had been filed by one Charn Dass challenging the agreement to sell dated 07.01.2010 supra besides seeking an injunction against the father of the petitioners and father of the respondents herein. The said suit is dismissed on 16.11.2013.
4. Another suit is filed in the year 2015 by the father of the respondents herein against the father of the petitioners, challenging all the above agreements to sell while seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of land measuring 7 Kanals 5 Marlas under Survey No. 761 (supra).
5. The said suit is contested by the father of the petitioners by filing written statement to the said suit whereupon the Trial court (Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur) dismissed the application for interim relief accompanying the said suit on 16.07.2020.
6. During the pendency of the suit (supra) filed before Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur, father of the petitioner and father of the respondents died.
7. A suit for possession is filed on 20.08.2020 by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein against the petitioners herein before Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Udhampur for possession of the land measuring 6 Kanals 15 Marlas covered under Survey No. 761 including 9 ½ marlas, concealing the fact of the pendency of the suit (supra) filed by their father before the Court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur.
8. Another suit is filed on 21.08.2020 by the sons of respondent 1 herein before Munsiff Udhampur seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioners herein in respect of land measuring 9 Marlas covered under Survey No. 761.
9. Written statement is filed to the said suit by the petitioners herein on 01.09.2020 whereafter, order of status qua granted by the said Court in the application for interim relief on 21.08.2020 is vacated on 11.09.2020. The said suit is subsequently withdrawn by the sons of respondent No.1 herein on 24.09.2020.
10. The respondents herein filed a Miscellaneous appeal (supra) before the Appellate Court against order dated 16.07.2020 passed by the Trial Court in the suit initially filed by the father of the respondents herein against the father of the petitioners before the Court of Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Udhampur, whereunder the interim application accompanying the said suit had been dismissed by the said Trial Court.
11. The Appellate Court passed the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 while setting aside the order of the Trial Court dated 16.07.2020 directing maintenance of status qua with respect to the possession and nature of the said land.
12. The impugned order is assailed, inter-alia, on the grounds that the Appellate Court passed the same without appreciating the material fact on record and that the factual finding recorded by the Appellate Court about the title of the land in question is contrary to the record and, thus, untenable and that the Appella
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of granting injunctions, emphasizing the need for full and fair disclosure of facts by the parties and the principle that ....
The High Court should exercise its supervisory power with great care and caution, intervening only in cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or j....
Additional evidence – Application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right.
Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction precludes re-appreciation of evidence or view substitution in temporary injunction disputes absent perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in lower courts'....
A temporary injunction requires a prima facie case and balance of convenience, which the petitioners failed to establish.
The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allow for a suit for declaration and cancellation of an instrument concerning immoveable property.
The party seeking an injunction must prove a prima facie case to go for trial, and if failed, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not material.
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
