Back
2020 Supreme(All) 92
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Matawar Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
District Judge Shravasti and Ors. - Respondents
Misc. Single No. 3855 of 2020
Decided On : 11-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mohan Singh.
Point of Law
Power of the competent court does not only flow from Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC but also Section 151 of the CPC while relates to inherent power to make necessary the order in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Rejection of application of the petitioner for temporary injunction in Regular Suit on the ground of failure to make out a prima facie case – Challenged – Held, Court finds from the orders impugned that no final finding has been arrived at with regard to the title or the claim of the petitioner to the land in dispute to be used by him as sahan. Only a prima facie finding has been recorded that in the revenue records, Plot no.580 has been recorded as raasta and in the Amin Commissioner's report also, it was found to be used by other persons as well and that the houses of other persons were opening there on the disputed piece of land – Court does not find any legal infirmity in the orders impugned. It is only one of the possible views that can be taken by the trial court and the appellate court and this Court under Article 227 enjoys a very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the orders passed by the subordinate courts – Petition dismissed. (Paras 21 and 22)
Facts of the Case
Petitioner filed regular suit for permanent injunction against the private respondents, who are the Gram Pradhan and his two brothers saying that the petitioner has a house situated in village Parsiya and his house is in two parts; one part of the house is used for residence and the remaining is used for Ghari, Bhusaila and Charani for cattle, where he has also installed his machinery.
Finding of the Court
Court finds from the orders impugned that no final finding has been arrived at with regard to the title or the claim of the petitioner to the land in dispute to be used by him as sahan. Only a prima facie finding has been recorded that in the revenue records, Plot no.580 has been recorded as raasta and in the Amin Commissioner's report also, it was found to be used by other persons as well and that the houses of other persons were opening there on the disputed piece of land – Court does not find any legal infirmity in the orders impugned. It is only one of the possible views that can be taken by the trial court and the appellate court and this Court under Article 227 enjoys a very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the orders passed by the subordinate courts.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shravasti, rejecting the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction in Regular Suit No.36/2017 (Matawar Prasad vs. Jagdish and others) and the order dated 13.1.2020 passed by the District Judge, Shrawasti in Misc. Civil Appeal No.22/2019.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed a regular suit for permanent injunction against the private respondents, who are the Gram Pradhan and his two brothers saying that the petitioner has a house situated in village Parsiya and his house is in two parts; one part of the house is used for residence and the remaining is used for Ghari, Bhusaila and Charani for cattle, where he has also installed his machinery. In between two parts of the residential houses and Bhusaila, there is a sahan land, which is also used as ingress and egress of tractor and trolley belonging to the petitioner. The sahan land is now being tried to be converted into public raasta by the respondent nos.3 to 5 due to panchayat election rivalry. The sahan land is marked as A, B, C and D in the map annexed with the plaint and that the respondents no.3 to 5 be restrained from using the sahan land as raasta and making it into the kharanja marg. On the case being registered and notice being issued, respondent nos.3 to 5 filed their objection to the application for temporary injunction, but in the meantime, the trial court had also passed an ex-parte interim order on the date of registration of the suit i.e. on 17.1.2017 that the parties shall maintain status quo over the land in question. After written statement and objections were filed, the petitioner filed his replication also. An Amin Commissioner was appointed by the learned trial court on 17.1.2017 on an application moved by the petitioner and the Amin Commissioner visited the land in question on 18.4.2017 and submitted his report. The petitioner filed his objection to the report of the Amin Commissioner. The learned trial court while deciding the application for temporary injunction Paper no.6A by the impugned order dated 18.9.2019, has rejected the petitioner's apprehension on the ground of failure to make out a prima facie case. The petitioner filed an appeal, which has also been rejected.
4. It has been pointed out that during the pendency of appeal, an interim order of maintenance of status quo had been granted by the appellate court, which has now merged with the order, rejecting the appeal. Hence the need arose to file this petition.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court while passing the order impugned has misinterpreted the Amin's report and has taken the raasta mentioned in the revenue records as Gata no.580 to be the land on which the petitioner's sahan is situated, whereas the petitioner's house is situated on Abadi Gata no.669 and not on Gata no.580.
6. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while rejecting the application for temporary injunction, the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the principles for grant of temporary injunction and has conducted a mini trial, giving a finding against the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on the basis of judgment rendered in Kendriya Karmchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2009 (27) LCD 185 that when the question of immovable property is involved, the trial court should have passed an order to maintain status quo. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that rejection of the application for temporary injunction may lead to irreparable loss being caused to the petitioner. He has referred to Para-9 of the judgment to buttress his argument.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment in Anupam Sahkari Av
