2019 (9) TMI 1647 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of temporary injunction - order of status quo passed by learned trial court is set aside - Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C. - HELD THAT - Grant of temporary injunction is discretionary and the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of court of first instance except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions - It is apparent that scope of interference by learned appellate court with learned trial court s order on temporary injunction application is limited. If two views are possible, then the view taken by learned trial court has to be maintained. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharwal Khejwaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot Vs Baldev Dass 2004 (10) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT has held that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit a change of the said status quo, which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings - In the present case, the dispute is regarding a passage 7.5 ft. in width. Plaintiffs (petitioners herein) apprehend that the defendants ( respondents herein) will increase the height of the passage by laying concrete, which will result in water logging in the adjoining plots belonging to the plaintiffs and will also block the drain. A perusal of the order passed by learned trial court indicates that learned trial court was justified in directing the parties to maintain status quo in order to maintain and preserve the property. Thus, learned appellate court was not justified in interfering with the discretionary order passed by learned trial court - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to appellate court's order setting aside status quo directive by trial court in a civil appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition challenging an appellate court's order dated 20.08.2019, which set aside the status quo directive issued by the trial court in a civil appeal. The court highlighted that the grant of temporary injunction is discretionary, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or if settled legal principles were ignored. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Esha Ekta Apartments CHS Limited case, the judgment emphasized the limited scope of interference by the appellate court with the trial court's order on temporary injunction applications. The principle was reiterated that if two views are possible, the trial court's decision should be upheld.

The judgment further cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Maharwal Khejwaji Trust case, emphasizing that unless a party demonstrates irreparable loss or damage, a change in status quo should not be allowed to prevent potential harm to the party who may succeed ultimately. The judgment discussed a specific dispute concerning a 7.5 ft. passage where the petitioners feared the respondents might increase its height, leading to waterlogging and blockage of drains in adjoining plots. The trial court, after evaluating the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, had directed the parties to maintain status quo, a decision deemed justified to preserve the property.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the appellate court's order. The parties were directed to ensure no alteration to the passage during the suit's pendency, with instructions for the trial court to expedite the case without unnecessary adjournments. The judgment underscored the importance of maintaining status quo to prevent potential harm and emphasized the need for courts to respect trial court decisions unless there are clear grounds for interference.