Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shri Revansiddeshwar Pattan Sahakari Bank Niyamit, was defendant No. 2 in a civil suit filed by respondent No. 1, Taluka Tokrekoli (Ambiga Samaji C Vikas Sangh Indi), against respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, seeking declaration and injunction regarding suit land. Both parties filed injunction applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Trial Court dismissed both applications on 10.03.2014. Defendant No. 2 appealed, and the Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 16.07.2015, granting injunction in favor of defendant No. 2. Plaintiff filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the appellate order. The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, confirming the injunction in favor of defendant No. 2 but also granting injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining defendant No. 2 from interfering with plaintiff's possession. Defendant No. 2 appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order was inconsistent and lacked reasoning, as the plaintiff's injunction application had been dismissed by the Trial Court and not appealed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the case for fresh hearing.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Remand - High Court's order granting injunction to both parties without proper reasoning and inconsistent with the scope of the writ petition was set aside - Supreme Court remanded the case for fresh hearing - Held that the High Court failed to examine facts and legal questions properly (Paras 10-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the plaintiff's writ petition in part and granting injunction in favor of both parties inconsistently without proper reasoning.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on its merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Injunction
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Writ jurisdiction
- Remand for fresh hearing
- Inconsistent orders
- Lack of reasons
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (2) 122
Civil Appeal No. 2013 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.23249 of 2018)
Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari
Shri Revansiddeshwar Pattan Sahakari Bank Niyamit
Taluka Tokrekoli (Ambiga Samaji C Vikas Sangh Indi) (Earlier Gangamath Sangha) & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration and injunction regarding suit land, with cross-applications for injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellant (defendant No. 2) sought setting aside of High Court's order granting injunction to plaintiff and remanding the case.
Filing Reason
Appellant aggrieved by High Court's order partly allowing plaintiff's writ petition and granting injunction to both parties inconsistently.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed both injunction applications on 10.03.2014; Appellate Court allowed defendant No. 2's appeal and granted injunction on 16.07.2015; High Court partly allowed plaintiff's writ petition on 28.06.2018.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the plaintiff's writ petition in part and granting injunction in favor of both parties inconsistently without proper reasoning.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the High Court's order was inconsistent and lacked reasons.
Respondent No. 1 argued in support of the High Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court's order granting injunction to both parties was inconsistent and lacked reasoning, especially since the plaintiff's injunction application had been dismissed by the Trial Court and not appealed. The High Court failed to examine the facts and legal questions properly, making the order legally unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The High Court did not assign any reasons for allowing the writ petition and secondly, the High Court seemed to have passed somewhat inconsistent order.
When the plaintiff's injunction application stood dismissed by the Trial Court and the same was not carried in appeal at his instance, the same could not have been revived by the High Court in a writ petition filed by the plaintiff.
Procedural History
Trial Court dismissed both injunction applications on 10.03.2014. Defendant No. 2 appealed; Appellate Court allowed appeal and granted injunction on 16.07.2015. Plaintiff filed writ petition in High Court; High Court partly allowed writ petition on 28.06.2018. Defendant No. 2 appealed to Supreme Court; Supreme Court allowed appeal and remanded on 25.02.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Section 151
