Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JAYANT BANERJI, J.
Upendra Singh @ Avdhesh Singh And 2 Others - Petitioners
Versus
Rajveer Singh And Another - Respondents
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 NO. 11046 OF 2023.
Decided On : 13-12-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sujeet Kumar, Chhaya Gupta.
For the Respondent: Ravesh Kumar Singh.

The court emphasized that granting a temporary injunction requires clear evidence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which were inadequately established by the plaintiffs.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX - Appeal against the setting aside of temporary injunction - Disputed property claimed as a path between houses - Injunction granted by trial court for restraining defendants from interfering in plaintiffs' rights, later overturned by appellate court - Appellate court found absence of evidence showing path's existence and ruled on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in favor of defendants. (Paras 6, 12, 16)

(B) Injunctions - Criteria for grant - A temporary injunction should consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury; the trial court's reliance on bailiff's report alone was insufficient. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an appellate court decision that set aside a trial court injunction allowing plaintiffs to use a claimed path, asserting a mandatory injunction for removal of constructions after a dispute arose about access to the path separating their properties. (Paras 4, 6, 14)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court justified its ruling by stating plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case or prove easementary rights, leading to a determination of no balance of convenience. (Paras 12, 18)

Issues: The principal issues addressed include whether the trial court's injunction was justified based on the prima facie case regarding the path's existence and the balance of convenience. (Paras 11, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court rightly observed that the plaintiffs failed to produce any substantiated evidence for their claimed easement, thus overturning the trial court’s findings on the criteria for temporary injunction. (Paras 15, 17)

Result: The appellate court's decision was set aside to allow for a reevaluation of the plaintiffs' claims regarding the path. The parties were directed to maintain status quo. (Paras 18, 19)

Table of Content
1. initial hearing and status of caveat application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. challenge to temporary injunction order and property dispute. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments regarding trial court's decision on injunction. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's observations on procedural record and evidence. (Para 8 , 11)
5. description of disputed property and plaintiffs' claims. (Para 9 , 10)
6. appellate court's assessment of evidence and balance of convenience. (Para 12 , 13)
7. clarification of appellate court's oversight regarding injunction. (Para 14 , 15)
8. consideration of easement rights and necessity of evidence. (Para 16 , 17)
9. final decision on maintaining status quo pending fresh appellate review. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard Shri. Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri. Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri. Ravesh Kumar Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

2. Shri. Ravesh Kumar Singh, Advocate states that he had filed a caveat application on 26.10.2023 which has neither been reported nor is on record. However, the vakalatnama is not on record. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.

3. By means of the instant petition, an order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Kannauj passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.32 of 2022 has been challenged, whereby an order of temporary injunction granted by the trial court on 03.12.2022 in Original Suit No.369 of 2022 was set aside.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property in dispute is a 'rasta' (path) that separates the houses of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs had instituted the aforesaid suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendants for removing the constructions made in respect of the areas marked as A, I, & E, F in the plaint map. Thereafter, an application paper no.16-C2 seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC dated 16.09.2022 was filed for restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the path and from not making any constructions thereon as well as from obstructing the passage of the plaintiffs on the path by constructing a wall or doing such other work thereon, which would adversely affect the rights of the plaintiffs. It appears that a written statement was filed by the defendants and a report of the court bailiff was called for by the trial court. The court bailiff submitted a report dated 06.08.2022 along with a site map.

5. By the order dated 03.12.2022, an injunction restraining the defendants from making interference in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, was granted. Challenging the aforesaid order of temporary injunction, an appeal was filed that came to be allowed by means of the impugned order and the order dated 03.12.2022 was set aside.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the trial court had justifiably granted the injunction order after taking into account the factual situation as well as the amin report that was on record. It is stated that the three aspects of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were duly considered by the trial court before granting the order of temporary injunction. It is further contended that the court ought not to permit the nature of the property to be changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharwal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot v. Baldev Dass reported in (2004) 8 SCC 488.

7. Shri. Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has strongly opposed this petition and has referred to the detailed order passed by the appellate court to contend that