Munir Ahmed Quadari vs Dr. S.K. Jeevanmal
2021 Latest Caselaw 3442 Chatt

                                                                                           Page No.1

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                   WP227 No. 666 of 2021

      Munir Ahmed Quadari, S/o Late Sheikh Ahsanuddin Quadari Aged
       About 41 Years R/o Chotapara, Near Luniya Bhawan, Raipur Tehsil
       And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

                                                                                   ---- Petitioner

                                              Versus

    1. Dr. S.K. Jeevanmal S/o Late L. Jeevanmal, Aged About 75 Years R/o
       Jeevan Hospital, Bhatapara, Baloda Bazar, Tehsil And District Baloda
       Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

    2. Shirin Sharmila Jeevanmal D/o Late Dr. Navinchand Jeevanmal Aged
       About 49 Years R/o Bhatapara, Through The Attorney Holder Mr. Navin
       Jeevanmal, Aged About 55 Years, S/o Dr. Premchand Jeevanmal, R/o
       Jeevanmal Hospital, Bhatapara, Tehsil And District Baloda Bazar
       Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

                                                                              ---- Respondents

   ____________________________________________________________

For Petitioner                      :        Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate.
For Respondents                     :        Mr. Yashwant Thakur, Advocate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board

02/12/2021

Heard.

1. This petition has been brought being aggrieved by the impugned order

dated 16.11.2021 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.38/2021 dismissing

the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order of the trial Court

granting temporary injunction to the respondents.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents

have filed civil suit praying for only relief of permanent injunction. The

petitioner claims that he is in possession of the suit property under

licence from the respondents. The petitioner has made investments in Page No.2

the property which is known as Shamiyana Palace which is let out time

to time for holding of marriage ceremony and others ceremonies.

3. The respondents are not in possession of this property and in the suit

filed there is no prayer made seeking possession, therefore, the suit

itself is not maintenable. It is further submitted that the relief granted to

the respondent by way of interim injunction is in the nature of grant of

final relief.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in

the case of Kashi Math Samsthan and another Vs. Srimad Sudhindra

Thirtha Swamy and another, reported in AIR 2010 SC 296, Jharkhand

State Housing Board Vs. Anirudh Kumar Sahu and Ors., reported in

(2018) 18 SCC 330 and on another judgment of Supreme Court in the

case of Balasupramanian & another Vs. M. Arockiasamy(dead)

through LR's, reported in 2021 LawSuit(SC) 468. Therefore, it is

prayed that interim injunction be granted in favor of respondent is

erroneous and illegal, hence, liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made

by counsel for petitioner. It is submitted that there is concurrent finding

of the two Courts below. The respondents are the title holders of the

suit property. The petitioner was engaged by the respondents as

Manager of the property, who has misappropriated the property and

embezzled the funds, therefore, the petitioner is only an agent of the

respondents. It was decided by the respondents to conclude the

business in the suit premises regarding which notice was published on

30.6.2019 informing to the all concerned that the business in the suit

property Shamiyana Palace has been closed and no booking for the

same shall be allowed for the future. The petitioner despite this notice,

continued accepting booking for the suit property regarding which he Page No.3

had no entitlement and no authority from the respondent side. The

petitioner has no title over the suit property.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in

case of Deoraj Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2004)

4 SCC 697. It is submitted that the Court is empowered to grant interim

injunction in appropriate cases in the case of availability of a very

strong prima facie case of a standard much higher than just prima

facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and

irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of

the applicant. The case of the respondents is similar, therefore, there is

no error committed in the impugned order, hence, the petition be

dismissed.

5. In reply, it is submitted that the counsel for petitioner that before the

passing of the injunction order of the trial Court. The petitioner has

received bookings for the suit property Shamiyana Palace and the last

date of booking is in the month of February, 2022, therefore, the

petitioner may be permitted to honour the bookings. Hence, relaxation

may be granted for the same.

6. Considered on the submissions. There is no specific denial of the title

of the respondents by the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner is

only that he was licensy of the suit property. Whereas it is claimed by

the respondent that the petitioner is agent of the respondents. The

view taken by the trial Court and the appellate Court that the

respondents have primafacie case in their favor is a correct view which

does not need any interference. The submissions of the respondents

that the booking made by the petitioner was unauthorized and against

the intention of the respondents which was expressed by them by

publication of notice on 30.6.2019, therefore, the primafacie case Page No.4

being in favor of the respondents and according to their statement, the

booking made by the petitioner being unauthorized, the balance of

convenience is in favor of the respondents. The finding of the

irreparable injury in favor of the respondent has also does not need

any interference.

7. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 the Constitution is

limited to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within

the limits of its authority, and not to correct an error apparent on the

face of the record, much less an error of law. In the instant case,

there was no error of law or error apparent on the face of record

much less an error of law as it has been held in Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd.

Mustaqim & Ors, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 566, hence, in view of

these observations, I do not find any substance in this petition, which is

dismissed at motion stage.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nisha