AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.S Dias, J
Aggrieved by Ext P6 order passed in IA No.3/2022 in CMA No.175/2022 of the Court of the Vacation Judge, Palakkad (Appellate Court), the appellant has filed the original petition. The respondents are the respondents in the appeal.
The concise case of the petitioner in the original petition is that he has filed OS No.655/2022 before the Court of the Munsiff, Palakkad (Trial Court), against the respondents, for a decree of mandatory injunction to permit him to participate in the faculty of “Vrundavadyam (HSS) (General)” in the 61st Kerala State School Kalotsavam- 2022-2023, (in short, ‘Kalotsavam’) to be held in Kozhikode from January 3rd to 7th, 2022. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed IA No.3050/2022, for an order of temporary injunction. The Trial Court, by Ext P4 order, rejected IA No.3050/2022. Aggrieved by Ext P4 order, the petitioner preferred CMA No.162/2022 before the Appellate Court. With the appeal, the petitioner filed IA No.3/2022, for an order of temporary mandatory injunction, to permit him to participate in the Kalotsavam. The Appellate Court, by the impugned Ext P6 order rejected the application. Ext P6 order is manifestly wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.
Heard: Sri.A.L Navaneeth Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The question is whether there is any illegality in Ext P6 order.
The petitioner has filed the suit, inter-alia, to pass a decree of mandatory injunction against the respondents to permit him and his team to participate in the Kalotsavam from January 3rd to 7th , 2022.
With the suit, the petitioner filed IA No.3050/2022 for an order of ad-interim mandatory injunction, for an identical relief in the suit.
The Trial Court, by Ext P4 order, held that it cannot come to the conclusion, at the ad-interim stage, whether the arrangements were not perfect in the absence of documents. Thus, the petitioner has not made out a case for an order of interim mandatory injunction.
Challenging Ext P4 order, the petitioner has filed CMA No.175/2022. The Appellate Court also, after reappreciating the pleadings and materials on record, by the impugned Ext P6 order, concluded that the allegation levelled in the application for an ad-interim order was a question of fact and the petitioner has not made out a case for an interim mandatory injunction.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden vs Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors [1990 KHC 756] had laid down the circumstances under which an interim mandatory injunction can be granted.
In the case on hand, both the Courts have concurrently found that the case put forth by the petitioner is a question of fact and interim relief is identical to the relief in the suit, which cannot be granted at interlocutory stage.
It is trite, an order of temporary mandatory injunction is essentially an equitable relief that can only be granted in cases of exceptional circumstances and by sound exercise of judicial discretion.
I do not find any ground or reason to upturn the concurrent findings of the courts below in Exts P4 and P6 orders warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is meritless and is hence dismissed.