Allahabad High Court
Lalta Prasad Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 July, 2012
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25441 of 2012
Petitioner :- Lalta Prasad Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Lallan Chaubey
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Vipin Sinha
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri Lallan Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Tripathi has appeared for respondent No.3, State Bank of India.
Petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing judgment and order dated 27.7.2011 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Varanasi in Original Suit No.1099 of 2010 and the appellate order thereto dated 20.3.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Varanasi. The courts below by the aforesaid orders have refused to grant injunction in favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid suit.
Petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.3,70,000/- from the State Bank of India for purchasing a tractor. On account of non-payment of instalments a recovery has been issued against him. Therefore, he instituted suit for permanent injunction. In the suit, he filed an application for interim injunction restraining the bank and State authorities from recovering the loan amount.
The injunction application has been rejected by the court of first instance, besides other things, on one of the grounds that as the recovery certificate has already been issued by the Collector, no injunction can be granted in view of Order XXXIX Rule 2(2)(g) of C.P.C. as amended by U.P.State Amendment Act, 1976. On merits the court of first instance held that there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. This order has been affirmed by the appellate court.
The Code of Civil Procedure in its applicability to the State of U.P. has been amended vide U.P. Act No.57 of 1976 and it provides for adding a proviso after Sub-Rule 2 to Rule 2 of Order XXXIX C.P.C. The said proviso contemplates that no injunction shall be granted in cases specified therein below which in clause (g) refers to proceedings for recovery of dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue unless adequate security is furnished.
Thus, in view of addition of the above proviso to Rule 2(2)(g) of Order XXXIX, no injunction can be granted in respect of proceedings for recovery of dues which are recoverable as arrears of land revenue unless adequate security is furnished.
The recovery of loan in the present case is by way of land revenue and the petitioner had not furnished or offered to furnish any security. Therefore, he is not entitle to any injunction.
Secondly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India can not be exercised like an appellate authority by indulging in re-appreciation of evidence to correct errors of fact or law. It is exercisable only to correct jurisdictional errors if the courts below have acted without jurisdiction or in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice or where there is manifest or patent error apparent on the face of record.
In view of the above the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
It will, however, be open to the petitioner to approach the bank for mutual settlement or to furnish adequate security and apply afresh for interim injunction.
Order Date :- 13.7.2012
brizesh
