2020 (1) TMI 1690 - HC - Indian Laws

Directing the parties to maintain status quo on spot with respect to the suit property till the disposal of the main suit - Order 39 Rule 1 2 CPC - HELD THAT - The order impugned which is a discretionary order passed by the appellate Court does not call for any interference in the exercise of power of superintendence vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is well settled that injunction is an interim discretionary relief granted pending adjudication of the suit. Discretion has to be exercised keeping in mind the principles governing grant of injunction. Appellate Court would not normally interfere with the exercise of discretion if the conclusion reached by the trial Court is based on the material on record. However in the present case the appellate Court on a careful consideration of the material on record came to a definite conclusion that the defendants were in possession of the suit property and therefore cannot be deprived of its use and accordingly set aside the order of the trial Court - the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. From the perusal of impugned order it is revealed that the appellate Court has reversed the order of the trial Court directing the parties not to alienate the suit property in any manner which order very well preserve the suit property till the disposal of the main suit. This Court finds no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to appellate court's order setting aside status quo and granting injunction; Failure to consider principles for grant of temporary injunction; Exercise of discretion by appellate court; Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the appellate court's order that reversed the trial court's direction to maintain status quo on the suit property until the main suit's disposal. The appellate court prohibited alienation of the property until the main suit's conclusion.

2. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of joint ownership of the land and sought an injunction against alienation or construction. The trial court granted the injunction, but the appellate court reversed it, emphasizing the defendants' possession and the lack of consideration for key principles for granting injunctions.

3. The appellate court found in favor of the defendants based on possession, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The petitioner contended that the trial court's order was in line with legal principles, but the respondents argued otherwise.

4. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the appellate court's discretionary order did not warrant interference under Article 227. It emphasized that injunctions are interim discretionary reliefs and appellate courts should not interfere unless there is a clear legal error.

5. The High Court reiterated that interference under Article 227 is limited to cases where the appellate court exceeds its jurisdiction or acts illegally. In this instance, the appellate court's decision did not meet these criteria, precluding the High Court's intervention.

6. The appellate court's interference was based on the trial court's alleged oversight of key principles for granting injunctions. The High Court noted that the appellate court's order preserved the suit property until the main suit's resolution.

7. Lastly, the High Court emphasized the importance of parties approaching the court with full disclosure of material facts. The petitioner's suppression of information about a prior lawsuit affected the decision, as parties seeking discretionary relief must act with transparency.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in challenging the appellate court's decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of following legal principles for granting injunctions and the necessity of full disclosure in legal proceedings.