Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Respondent No.1 (Shashi Verma) under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking declaration of wrongful dispossession from Shop No. 3 in Anand Complex, Solan, and a permanent injunction against the appellant (Tek Singh). The appellant claimed to be a tenant since 2004 under the landlady (Respondent No.2). The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, holding that granting the relief would amount to decreeing the suit. The appellate court affirmed, noting that the appellant was in possession as a tenant and there was no evidence of eviction. The High Court, in revision under Section 115 CPC, set aside these concurrent findings and allowed the revision, seemingly influenced by a police complaint. The Supreme Court held that the revision was not maintainable against an interlocutory order after the 1999 amendment to Section 115 CPC. Even otherwise, the revisional jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional errors, and the High Court had erroneously acted as an appellate court. The Court also noted that the High Court failed to apply the stricter standard required for granting a mandatory injunction at the interim stage, as laid down in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the orders of the lower courts, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 115 CPC - Interlocutory Orders - After the 1999 amendment, revision petitions under Section 115 CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders - The High Court set aside concurrent findings of fact without dealing with the appellate court's reasoning, and failed to note that the revision was against an interlocutory order - Held that the impugned judgment was unsustainable (Paras 6-7). B) Civil Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope - Section 115 CPC - Jurisdictional Errors Only - The revisional power under Section 115 CPC is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors, not errors of fact or law - The High Court treated the revision as an appeal, which is impermissible - Held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction (Paras 7-8). C) Specific Relief Act - Mandatory Injunction - Interim Stage - Strong Prima Facie Case Required - For granting a mandatory injunction at the interim stage, the plaintiff must show a strong case for trial, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in his favour - The High Court did not consider these principles - Held that the order granting mandatory injunction was erroneous (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could interfere under Section 115 CPC with an interlocutory order refusing temporary injunction, and whether the High Court correctly applied the law regarding mandatory injunctions
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 10.04.2018, and restored the judgments of the courts below. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of the judgment.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors
- not errors of fact or law
- Interlocutory orders are not revisable after 1999 amendment
- Mandatory injunction at interim stage requires strong prima facie case
