Back
2011 (I) OLR — 371
S.K. MISHRA, J.
W.P. (C) No. 2086 of 2010
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Padmanava Choudhury...Petitioner
Versus
Debendra Kumar Mohanty...Opp. Party
Decided on 4th November, 2010.
firstly, that there is a serious question to be tried in the suit and that on the facts before the Court there is a probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff-petitioner;
secondly, the Court’s interference is necessary to protect him from that species of injury which the Court calls irreparable, before his legal right can be established on trial: and
thirdly, that the comparative mischief or inconvenience which is likely to issue from withholding the injunction will be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it.
The first of the above conditions is what is generally termed “a prima facie case”. In other words, the prima facie existence of a right and its infringement is the first condition for the grant of a temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title. Prima facie title can be established by evidence. On the other hand, a prima facie case means, a substantial question raised bona fide which at first sight needs investigation and adjudication. But the existence of a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction of the temporary nature. The applicant should further satisfy the second condition by showing that unless such an injunction is granted in his favour, he shall suffer an injury, which cannot be adequately compensated by awarding damages. The third condition is called the principle of balance of convenience. In applying these principles, the Court should weigh the amount of substantial mischief that is likely to be caused to the applicant if the injunction is refused and balance it with that which is like to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on such consideration, the Court comes to the conclusion that pending adjudication of the issues, the subject matter should be maintained in status
quo, an injunction for that purpose should be issued. It must however be remembered that a temporary injunction should only be granted if all the three conditions are satisfied. Even where all the above conditions are satisfied, a temporary injunction may nevertheless refused for other reasons. This being the principle, the present case should be examined to consider, whether the conditions are fulfilled. (Para - 7)
2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Sec. 144 - An order passed under the section is not binding on the Civil Court - The same has to be considered as admissible material especially there is scramble possession and the Court is required to determine prima facie possession of any of the parties - Such materials are rebuttable, but can only be done so at the stage of adducing evidence by the parties. (Para - 8)
JUDGMENT
S.K. MISHRA, J. — The opposite party in Misc.Case No. 22/241 of 2001, arising out of Title Suit No. 249 of 2001 of the Court of the Ist Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhubaneswar has assailed the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 4th October,2004, which has been confirmed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, F.T.C. No. 3, Bhubaneswar in F.A.O. No. 24/13/152 of 2006/2004 temporarily injuncting him from creating any disturbance over the suit land.
2.The lands, for which the present case has been initiated, measure an area of Ac.0.41 decs. pertaining to three plots. Those plots are: (i) Plot No. 261, Khata No. 296, area Ac.0.18 decs. corresponding to Plot No. 261/710, Khata No. 299/11 Area Ac.0.18 decs. (ii) Chaka Plot no. 642, Chaka No. 229, Area Ac.0.13 decs. of Mouza-Saleswar, and (iii) Khata No. 515, Chaka Plot No.1818, Area Ac.0.10 decs. Mouza-Jagannathpur, Dist.Khurda. The first two plots are the subject matter of the dispute in O.S.No. 206 of 1986. The civil litigation is at present pending before this Court in S.A.No. 34 of 1996. The third plot bears Chaka Plot No. 1818 is the subject matter of O.S. No. 180 of 1999. The matter is at present pending before the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in R.F.A. No. 73 of 2005. The present opposite party filed a suit for perpetual injunction. In the said suit he filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter referred as the Code, for brevity. The opposite party, inter alia, alleged that he purchased the suit land from the original recorded tenant Hata Pradhan under two Regd. Sale Deeds executed on 19.7.1985 and 24.07.1987. Since then, he has been possessing the suit land and it has been mutated in his favour during consolidation operation. It is his further case that the defendant-opp. party no.1, widow of late Hata Pradhan and defendant no.2 claiming as the daughter of the said Hata Pradhan challenged the first Sale Deed made by Hata Pradhan in Title Suit no. 206 of 1986 before the Munsif, Bhubaneswar. Though the suit was decreed in their favour, the said decree was set aside by the Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 19 of 1988 and the sale deed was held to be valid.
3.The second sale deed was executed by defendant no.1 after the death of Hata Pradhan in Title Suit no. 180 of 1999 and the same is still the subject matter of the pending litigation. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant nos. 1 and 2 jointly sold the disputed land to the present petitioner on 01.11.2000 knowing fully well that the Hata Pradhan has already sold the suit land to the present opposite party. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Hata Pradhan during his life time has transferred his suit land and defendant no.1 has no right, title or interest over the suit land to transfer the same to opp. party no. 2. Hence, the petitioner has not acquired any right, over the suit land. Therefore, he prayed for temporary injunction, claiming that he will suffer irreparable loss otherwise.
4.The present petitioner i.e. the opposite party before the learned Senior Civil Judge filed his objection denying the averments made in the interim application. He, inter alia, pleaded that the petitioner has no cause of action and the suit is bad being hit by Sections 10 and 11 of the Code. The defendants further pleaded that the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by the Hata Pradhan in favour of Debendra Kumar Mohanty are under challenge on the ground that those sale deeds were forged documents. It is specifically pleaded that the Hata Pradhan was an illiterate and he used to affix thumb impression on different documents. Thus, the signatures appearing on the documents purporting to be of Hata Pradhan are forgeries. The present petitioner has further pleaded that Labanyabati Pradhan and Charubala Pradhan while in peaceful possession of the suit land have alienated it in his favour for the legal necessi
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
