1989 Supreme(MP) 381

V. D. Gyani and A. G. Qureshi, JJ.
Mansingh v. Mst. Parobai.
M. P. No. 258 of 1989 (I); Decided on 5-10-1989.

Headnote:(1) Civil P. C., 1908-O.39, Rr. 1 and 2-mandatory injunction to return possession taken forcibly during pendency of suit-matter is discretionary-writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

       

        (2) Constitution of India-Art. 227-jurisdiction of High Court under-is too narrow-no interference in discretionary orders can be made.

       ¼1½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908&vkŒ 39] fuŒ 1 ,oa 2&okn ds yacudky esa cykr~ fy, x, dCts dh okilh dk vkKkid O;kns‘k&fo"k; oSosf/kd gS&fjV vf/kdkfjrk dk voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrkA

       ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku&vuqŒ 227&mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk&vRf/kd lhfer gSS&oSosf/kd vkns‘kksa esa gLr{ksi ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

        As can be gathered from the documents filed by the petitioner, the Civil Judge, Class II, Khachrod, by his order dated 12-11-82 (Annexure P. 16) passed an ad-interim mandatory injunction against the" Respondent No. 1 -Parobai. She preferred a Misc. Appeal registered as Civil Misc. Appeal No 91/81. This appeal was decided by order dated 20th July, 88. A photostat copy of the order has been placed on record, Annexure-P. 17.

        The dispute relates to House No. 175 Ramshay Marg, Nagda. Respondent No. 1 claims to be owner in occupation of the said house. According to her after death of her husband she became the owner of the house.

        The petitioner served a notice dated 15-5-76 to the respondent through his counsel challenging her rights and denouncing her as a licensee. He also thre1tened her that he would break open the lock and take possession of the house. In view of this eminent threat, a suit was filed wherein an application for interim injunction was moved. The petitioner was served with notice. He asked for time from the trial Court and while the case was going on, he on the night intervening 16th and 17th October, 1982, in absence of the Respondent No. I broke open the lock and took possession of the house. The respondent tried to lodge a report at the Police Station but as her report was not written she, therefore, filed a suit and prayed for an interim mandatory injunction"

        Her prayer was rejected by the trial Court. The appellate Court, however, after discussing the material available on record, directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of the house in question to the respondent No. 1.

        Held: Instead of complying with the order, the petitioner filed a review petition. This review petition was also rejected by the Appellate Court vide Annexure P. 19. Shri Chhazed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that he (Petitioner) was in physical possession of the said house since 1971. He also invited attention to various documents filed by the petitioner. His contention was that the Court below has committed a jurisdictional error in ignoring the material documents.

        As it is, the scope of interference U/A 227 of the Constitution of India by this Court as-held by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mustaguim -AIR 1984 SC 38 is too narrow as injunction is a discretionary relief. We do not find any such legitimate ground in this petition so as to invoke tile extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order. AIR 1984 SC 38 followed. Petition dismissed.