Md. Sabir vs Md. Abdul Washid - 2013 Supreme(Megh) 4

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Megh) 4

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH
Md. Sabir – Appellant
Versus
Md. Abdul Washid – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Sen, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S.S. Das, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? What is the legality of granting temporary (mandatory) injunction in a partition suit that lacks a main prayer for injunction?

Question 2? What factors (Golden Tests) and legal standards govern the grant of temporary injunction under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

Question 3? Can a High Court exercise Article 227 supervisory powers or Section 115 CPC revisional power against interim injunctions, and under what circumstances?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the legality of granting temporary (mandatory) injunction in a partition suit that lacks a main prayer for injunction?

Question 2?

What factors (Golden Tests) and legal standards govern the grant of temporary injunction under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?

Question 3?

Can a High Court exercise Article 227 supervisory powers or Section 115 CPC revisional power against interim injunctions, and under what circumstances?

Order

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the judgment and order of the District Judge, Shillong dated 21.12.2012 passed in FAO No. 4(H)2011 for upholding the judgment and order dated 21.04.2011 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Shillong in Misc. Case No. 39(H)2009 (reference Partition Suit No. 12(H)2006) for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from appropriating with the respondent/plaintiff’s one fifth share of the monthly rent collected from the 26 tenants in the suit property and further directed the petitioner to deposit the same in the Court till the partition suit, where there is no main prayer for injunction, is finally decided. The core issues posed for consideration in the present revision are:--

(i) Whether the prayer for temporary injunction (mandatory temporary injunction) can be granted in a suit for partition simpliciter, where there is no main prayer for injunction (one of the main relief)? and

(ii) Whether the Court can exercise the discretionary powers to grant temporary (mandatory) injunction without considering the three Golden Tests, viz:--

(a) Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document