Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Sanjay Dhar, J.
M.R. Industries – Appellant
versus
State of J&K and Ors. – Respondents
MA No.141 of 2013
Decided on 17.12.2024
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Nissar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA
IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction – A person holding a premises gratuitously and whose initial entry in the premises is questionable, would not acquire any right or interest in the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequence.
Headnote:
Injunction – Grant of – Civil Court while considering grant or refusal of interim injunction has to analyse pleadings of parties so as to come to a conclusion whether or not there is a prima facie case in favour of plaintiff and whether withholding of order of injunction would cause irreparable loss to plaintiff – Court has also to consider balance of convenience while passing order of interim injunction – A person holding a premises gratuitously and whose initial entry in the premises is questionable, would not acquire any right or interest in the property and even long possession in that capacity would be of no legal consequence – Plot of land belongs to a third person who is a migrant – There is no prima facie case in favour of appellant/plaintiff – For this reason alone, appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to grant of interim injunction – No ground to interfere with impugned order passed by Trial Court. (Paras 7, 11, 12 and 13)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The appellant through the present Miscellaneous Appeal has challenged order dated 22.07.2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, whereby application of the appellant for grant of temporary injunction has been dismissed.
2. It appears that the appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, inter alia, seeking an injunction against the respondents/defendants restraining them from interfering with the use and occupation of plot of land bearing No.63-C situated at Industrial Estate Zainakote, Srinagar.
3. In the plaint, the case set up by the plaintiff is that it is a Small Scale Industrial Unit, to which 2 kanals of land, situated at Industrial Estate Zainakote, Srinagar, was allotted by the respondents in terms of lease deed dated 28.06.2006. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff was permitted to undertake additional activities by the respondents, whereafter, he was tacitly allowed by the respondents to utilize the additional space in the form of adjacent plot of land bearing No.63-C. According to the plaintiff he has been paying ground rent charges to the respondents for use of said plot of land. It has been further pleaded that the plaintiff has approached the defendants time and again with a request to issue a formal allotment order in its favour in respect of aforesaid plot of land in consonance with the industrial policy of defendant No.1. However, according to the defendants the plaintiff has encroached upon the additional plot of land which is a migrant property. It is the case of plaintiff that stand taken by the defendants is not correct and that plaintiff has been tacitly allowed to use the additional plot of land. Therefore, the defendants cannot evict the plaintiff from the occupation of Plot No.63-C, without following due process of law as mandated in terms of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
4. It seems that defendant did not file any written statement but filed an application seeking stay of the suit in terms of Section 10 of the CPC. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the application of the plaintiff for grant of interim injunction by observing that there is a litigation going on in respect of plot of land bearing No.63-C before High Court, in which a stay order has been passed, as such, no interim injunction can be passed in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff/appellant has challenged the impugned order passed by learned trial Court on the ground that in absence of written statement by the defendants it was not open to the trial Court to dismiss the application of the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is in settled possession of the additional plot of land in question, as such, he is entitled to be granted protection from eviction otherwise than in accordance with law. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that even the writ petition, reference whereof is made in the impugned order, stands dismissed, as such, there is no impediment in passing of interim injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
7. It is a settled law that a civil Court while considering grant or refusal of interim injunction has to analyse the pleadings of the parties, so as to come to a conclusion whether or not there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and whether withholding of an order of injunction would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The Court has also to consider the balance of convenience while passing an order of interim injunction.
8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is correct that defendants/respondents have not filed any written statement to the suit filed by the appellant, but then it does not absolve the trial Court from analyzing from the averments made in the plaint and the documents annexed th
