9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for interim stay of operation of a court order granting temporary mandatory injunction for restoration of possession. Jurisdiction of the court to grant temporary mandatory injunction under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in violation of interim injunction. Interpretation of Order 39, Rule 2A of CPC. Court's inherent power to grant immediate relief in cases of dispossessions despite interim injunction. Applicability of Section 151 of CPC for granting temporary mandatory injunction. Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction to Grant Temporary Mandatory Injunction: The case involved an application for interim stay of a court order granting a temporary mandatory injunction for restoration of possession. The petitioner challenged the court's jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 151 of the CPC for a temporary mandatory injunction. The petitioner contended that Order 39, Rule 2A provides the only remedy for violation of temporary or interim injunctions. However, the court held that in cases of serious injury or dispossessions despite interim injunctions, the court has inherent power to grant immediate relief to prevent injustice. 2. Interpretation of Order 39, Rule 2A: The petitioner argued that Order 39, Rule 2A is a provision for execution of orders for temporary injunctions and that Section 151 of the CPC has no application in cases of violation of temporary injunctions. The court, however, emphasized that when the injury is grave and immediate relief is necessary, the court's inherent power can be invoked to grant a temporary mandatory injunction for restoration of possession. 3. Court's Inherent Power: The court relied on precedents to establish that the court's inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC allows it to grant relief beyond the specific provisions of the Code. The court highlighted that technicalities should not prevent the court from delivering justice, especially in cases where immediate relief is essential to prevent further harm or injustice. 4. Precedents and Legal Interpretations: The court cited various legal precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, to support its interpretation of the court's inherent power to grant temporary mandatory injunctions in cases of dispossessions despite interim injunctions. The court emphasized that the purpose of such injunctions is to prevent injustice and restore the aggrieved party's rights. 5. Final Decision: Ultimately, the court affirmed the impugned order of the learned Judge, dismissing the appeal, the alternative application under Section 115 of the CPC, and the application for interim stay. The court concluded that the learned Judge was justified in passing the mandatory injunction under Section 151 of the CPC to restore possession to the opposite party. No costs were awarded, and the prayer for stay of operation was disallowed. This detailed analysis showcases the court's interpretation of legal provisions, precedents, and the exercise of inherent powers to grant relief in cases of dispossessions despite interim injunctions. The judgment emphasizes the court's duty to prevent injustice and deliver immediate relief when necessary.
|
