Mohini Bisht vs Geeta Devi Joshi

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

By means of this petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment & order dated 24.07.2019 passed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2018.

Petitioner filed a suit for injunction before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital being Suit No. 61 of 2018. She also moved an application for temporary injunction. Defendant to the suit (respondent herein) filed objection to the temporary injunction application and also Written Statement to the plaint. Learned trial Court allowed petitioner's temporary injunction application vide order dated 07.12.2018, by restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession over the suit land. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned trial Court, defendant filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2018, which has been allowed by learned IInd Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital vide judgment & order dated 24.07.2019, which is under challenge in this petition.

A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the land belonging to plaintiff as well as defendant is situate in Khasra No. 151 and in view of boundary dispute, proceedings under Section 41 of Land Revenue Act for its demarcation are pending before the Revenue Court. Learned Appellate Court has considered the relevant factors, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in great detail and has held that the plaintiff was not able to make out prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Learned Appellate Court has given cogent reasons for setting aside the order passed by learned trial Court.

A Division Bench of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of S. Radha Krishna Murthy Vs. K.Narayanadas and another, reported in AIR 1982 A.P. 384, has held as under:

"What emerges from the above conspectus is that the grant of interlocutory injunction is a discretionary remedy and in the exercise of judicial discretion, in granting or refusing to grant, the court will take into reckoning the following as guidelines:

(1) Whether the persons seeking temporary injunction has made out a prima facie case. This is sine qua non.

(2) Whether the balance of convenience is in his favour that is whether it could cause greater inconvenience to him if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the other side would be put to if the injunction is granted. As to that the governing principle is whether the party seeking injunction could be adequately compensated by awarding damages and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them.

(3) whether the person seeking temporary injunction would suffer irreparable injury. (It is, however, not necessary that all the three conditions must obtain. "With the first condition as sine qua non, at least two conditions should be satisfied by the petitioner conjunctively and a mere proof of one of the three conditions does not entitle a person to obtain temporary injunction.").

To sum up, the grant of interlocutory injunction is a remedy which is discretionary. To grant it one must establish and this is sine qua non, a prima facie case and secondly, the balance of convenience should be in his favour viz., the remedy of being recompensated by damages is inadequate or irreparable injury will, ensue, if the injunction is not granted to the person who prays for it."

In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.