The Appellate Court should not interfere with a trial judge's discretion regarding injunctions unless the decision is arbitrary or perverse, especially in cases involving significant infrastructure projects.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in Civil Suit bearing CNR No. HRPP02- 000191-2022 titled as 'Rajbir Singh v. Rohtas etc.' pending in the Court of ld. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat. He is aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2023 (Annexure P20) passed by the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby his application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction, regarding property in dispute, has been dismissed, by allowing the appeal bearing CNR No. HRPP01-015358-2022, against the order dated 05.11.2022 (Annexure P18), which was passed by the ld. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panipat, whereby the application had been allowed.

2. Land in dispute is comprised in Khewat No.17, Khatouni No.22 Khasra No.2541/2 (3-9), 2549 (3-15), 2550 (3-0), 2551 (3-0) and 2552 (3-0) total measuring 16 bigha 4 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Jodhan Kalan, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat.

3. As per the Jamabandi, plaintiff-Rajbir, his brother Rohtas and father Tek Ram are recorded to be co-sharer in the said land. Later, Tek Ram and Rajbir had transferred 3 bigha each of their share in favour of Nirmala, the sister of Rohtas and the daughter of Tek Ram and this way Rohtas, Rajbir and Nirmala became co-owner in possession of the land. 923/2141 share, which works out to be 7 bigha 1 biswas, in the disputed land has been sold by defendant No.1-Rohtas to defendant No.2-M/s Adani Agri Logistics Panipat Ltd. by way of impugned sale deed No.1295 dated 14.12.2017; whereas, the remaining shares in these Khasra numbers have been sold by plaintiff-Rajbir Singh and his sister Nirmala to the same vendee i.e. M/s Adani Agri Logistics Panipat Ltd. by way of sale deed No.63 dated 09.04.2019.

4. Plaintiff has challenged the sale deed as executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 by claiming that by virtue of the previous family settlements, it is only he (plaintiff), who was in exclusive possession of the disputed Khasra numbers and had become owner thereof and that this fact was admitted by defendant No.1 in the previous litigation i.e. partition application as well as civil suit. He also relies his claim upon a family settlement of 1996.

5. Defendant No.1-Rohtas denied that suit property was part of the family settlement. However, he did not dispute the factum of family settlement.

6. Defendant No.2-M/s Adani Agri Logistics Panipat Ltd. strongly opposed the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction by submitting that it has purchased the entire share of the three co-sharers in the property in dispute and that the two brothers in collusion with each other and in order to stall the infrastructure project of defendant No.2 had instituted the present suit.

7. Although the trial Court of ld. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) had allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC, but the appeal filed by defendant No.2, has been accepted and the application of the plaintiff has been dismissed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Panipat by way of impugned order.

8. Assailing the aforesaid order passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Panipat, it is contended by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff (petitioner herein) that the said order is not sustainable because the Appellate Court could not have interfered in the order of the Civil Judge unless it was perverse or illegal. Besides, if two views are possible and ld. Civil Court has taken one view, the Additional District Judge could not have substituted his view in place of the view taken by the Civil Judge. Ld. counsel has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

1. Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, Law Finder Doc ID # 51373.

2. Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) v. Baldev Dass, Law Finder Doc Id # 78730.

3. Wander Ltd. and Another v. Antox India P. Ltd., Law Finder Doc Id # 197677.

4. Mohd. Mehtab Khan and others v. Khushnuma Ibrahim and others, Law Finder Doc I