The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the impugned order date:22.07.2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, in dismissing the application vide the order dated 13.01.2022, passed in M.A.No.12/2021, passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC. The Court observed that unless a person who seeks an order of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC makes out a prima facie case and would show that non-grant of an injunction would result in irreparable loss, the person who seeks injunction would not be entitled to the said relief.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner/plaintiff on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, and appellant on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, is before this Court aggrieved by the rejection of I.A.No.4 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the defendant No.4 from interfering with possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and also the rejection of appeal filed against the said order under judgment dated 13.01.2022 in M.A.No.12/2021. The suit of petitioner/plaintiff is one for partition and separate possession along with a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 18.03.2019 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 with respect to suit schedule Item No.1 is not binding on the plaintiff.
The Trial Court has also based its finding on the certificate dated 09.07.2021 issued by the Village Accountant, which is placed on record by defendant No.4 to say that defendant No.4 is in possession of, and cultivating the land.
The Court noted that it is an admitted fact that there is a registered sale deed dated 18.03.2019 in favor of defendant No.4 executed by defendants 1 and 5 to 8. Based on the registered sale deed, the Trial Court prima facie came to the conclusion that defendant No.4 is in possession and is cultivating the land. The Appellate Court based on the material on record has come to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing I.A.No.4.
The Court observed that granting Grant of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC is a discretionary relief. Unless a person who seeks an order of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC makes out a prima facie case and would show that non-grant of an injunction would result in irreparable loss, the person who seeks injunction would not be entitled to the said relief. In the instant case, the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no merit in the petition and the balance of convenience lies in the favour of defendant No.4.
Case Title: Sri Anwar pasha v Sri Pyare Jaan & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. G. Pandit
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 5711 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. P.M. Gopi
Advocate for the Respondents: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :