The single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra of the Patna High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Vs The state of Bihar held that once the Court of first instance exercises its jurisdiction to grant or refuse relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the Court and is supported by cogent reasons, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the Trial Court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff filed the title suit claiming the tea stall in the name and style of Vijay Tea Stall within the premises of Biscomaun Bhavan Annexi Building. Furthermore, the shop was demolished in the year 2003 by Patna Regional Development Authority (PRDA). Thereafter, the petitioner approached the court and the court directed the authorities to dispose of the representation of the plaintiff. The authorities allotted a space measuring area 150 sq. ft. for 11 months and the agreement was not executed between the parties but still, the petitioner was in possession. Thereafter, the authorities gave notice to the petitioner to vacate the premises and stated that the premises needed renovation.
All the 12 shop occupiers received the notice and all of them vacated the premises, however, the petitioner asked to grant some other space. Then, the petitioner filed the titled suit and an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. which was dismissed by the trial court, and the Miscellaneous Appeal has also been dismissed vide the impugned order.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the concerned building is not in dilapidated condition but the authorities are trying to lease the shops to some other parties. Furthermore, it was submitted that the authorities didn’t even provide any alternate space where he could run his tea stall for his livelihood. Also, the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the three necessary conditions for the grant of temporary injunction.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents contended that all 12 shops are in a dilapidated condition and require renovation. Furthermore, Biscomaun invited a lease as they were not in a position to renovate the building.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the law is well settled that while passing an interim order of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court is required to consider:
- whether there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff;
- whether the balance of convenience is in favour of passing the order of injunction; and
- whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if an order of injunction would not be passed as prayed for.
It was furthermore observed that an injunction may be granted at the discretion of the court. It is well-established law that the Appellate Court will not interfere with the Trial Court's exercise of jurisdiction once the Court of First Instance has used its discretion to grant or deny the relief of a temporary injunction and that discretion has been based on an objective evaluation of the evidence submitted to the Court and is justified by substantial reasons.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the necessary ingredients for the grant of temporary injunction had not been found by the Court below in favour of the petitioner and the Court below was right in not granting the temporary injunction.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Court dismissed the application.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 313 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Amit Prakash G.A. 13, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
