1983 Supreme(MP) 709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
U.N. Bhachawat, J.
Kanhialal Chordia - Appellant
Vs.
Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills - Respondent
C. R. No. 767 of 1982 (G)
Decided On : 29-01-1983

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 39, R. 1 and 2 – interim injunction – cannot be granted on balance of convenience or irreparable injury without there being prima facie case – powers are discretionary.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 115, O. 39, R.1 and 2 and O. 43, R. 1 – temporary injunctionary – order is discretionary – appellate or revisional Court should not normally interfere.

       (3) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.39, R. 1 and 2 – interim injunction – trespasser is not, entitled.

        Short Note

       The case of the plaintiff is that he has been serving in the Birla Group of Industries and on account of his good services he was provided free accommodation with facilities of electricity and water free of charges for whole of his life.

       2. Along with the plaint the plaintiff had filed an application for an ad – interim injunction. That application has been rejected by both the Courts.

       3. The Courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact, that prima facie from the material on record the status of the plaintiff was that of a licensee and his services with Cimmco having been terminated, that license stood terminated, he is not entitled to continue in the suit accommodation, and as such, there being no prima facie case injunction cannot be granted.

       4. Held: For the grant of a temporary injunction it is a triet law that an injunction can be granted if the case of the applicant stands the three tests namely (i) that there is a prima facie case; (ii) irreparable injury, would be suffered by the applicant in case the injuction is refused; (iii) the balance of convience is in favour of the applicant i. e., in the grant of injunction and the refusal of injunction would cause greater inconvenience to the applicant. Unless – all these three conditions are satisfied, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant an injuction. If anyone of these conditions is found to be lacking injunction has to be refused. A temporary injunction should not be granted on the balance of convenience or irreparable injury alone without there being a prima facie case. In the light of the discussion above on plaintiff'~ own showing prima facie there exists no right of the plaintiff which is of being infringed. On the facts before the Court there appears to be no serious question to be tried in the suit. The two Courts below have found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff applicant herein, his status was that of a licensee and that stood revoked on the terminations of his se. vices – in the year 1977 with Cimmco, and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction. This finding of the Courts below about the prima facie case has not been shown to be perverse calling for interference in revision by this Court. It is in the discretion of the Court to issue or refuse to issue injunction and normally the appellate Court, much less a revisional Court does not interfere with the exercise of the discretion. The discretion, of course, like other cases of discretion vested in the Courts has to be exercised in accordance with the reason and on sound judicial principles. The grant of injunction is a serious matter and the Court should always take good care to grant an injunction. In view of the finding of the two Courts below which has not been found to be perverse, I find no ground for interference in this revision. From what I have discussed above the position of the plaintiff is that of a trespasser and as such he is not entitled to a temporary injunction. AIR 1978 Delhi 175 relied on. Revision dismissed.