Manipur High Court
Shri Khuraijam Gambhir Singh vs Smt. Moirangthem Ningol ... on 5 May, 2022
KABORA Digitally signed
MBAM byKABORAMBAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
SANDEE SANDEEP SINGH
P SINGH
Date: 2022.05.05
16:08:03 +05'30' AT IMPHAL
CRP (C.R.P. Art.227) No. 22 of 2017
Shri Khuraijam Gambhir Singh, aged about 68 years, s/o late
Kh.Haridas Singh of Sagolband Tera Sapam Leikai, P.O. Imphal
P.S. Lamphel, District : Imphal West, Manipur.
...Petitioner
-versus-
1. Smt. Moirangthem Ningol Khundrakpam Ongbi Loidang Devi,
aged about 64 years, wife of late H.Juge Singh, resident of
Ngangkhalawai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur,
Manipur.
2. Smt. Khundrakpam Ningol Leihaorongbam Ongbi Premila
Devi, aged about 50 years, daughter of late Kh.Juge Singh and
wife of Shri L.Indra Singh, resident of Naranseina Village, P.O.
& P.S. Moirang, District: Bishnupur, Manipur.
3. Shri. Khundrakpam Noren Singh, aged about 48 years, son of
late H.Juge Singh, resident of Ngangkhalawai Awang Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur.
4. Shri. Khundrakpam Basanta Singh, aged about 43 years, son
of late Kh.Juge Singh, resident of Ngangkhalawai Awang Leikai,
P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur.
5. Smt. Khundrakpam Ningol Heikrujam Ongbi Shanti Devi,
aged about 40 years, daughter of late Kh.Juge Singh and wife
of H.Nimai Singh, resident of Torbung Bangla, P.S.Kumbi,
District: Bishnupur, Manipur.
6. Shri. Khundrakpam Ningthem Singh, aged about 38 years,
son of late Kh.Juge Singh, by occupation cultivator, resident of
Ngangkhalawai Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District
Bishnupur, Manipur.
7. Shri. Khundrakpam Thoicha Singh, aged about 36 years, son
of late Kh.Juge Singh, by occupation cultivator, resident of
CRP(CRP Art.227) No.22 of 2017 Page 1
Ngangkhalawai Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District
Bishnupur, Manipur.
8. Shri. Khundrakpam Kumar Singh, aged about 34 years, son
of late Kh.Juge Singh, by occupation cultivator, resident of
Ngangkhalawai Awang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District
Bishnupur, Manipur.
... Principal Respondents
9. Shri. Moirangthem Bisho Singh, aged about 50 years, son of late
M.Tomba Singh, resident of Ngangkhalawai Village, P.O. & P.S. Moirang,
District Bishnupur, Manipur, died on 09/03/2017, by his LRs:
i) Smt. Moirangthem Somola Devi, aged about 46 years, wife of
late Moirangthem Bisho Singh, resident of Ngangkhalawai Village,
P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur.
ii) Smt. Moirangthem Shusma Devi, aged about 24 years, daughter
of late Moirangthem Bisho Singh, resident of Ngangkhalawai
Village, P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur.
iii) Moirangthem Motilal Singh, aged about 22 years, son of late
Moirangthem Bisho Singh, resident of Ngangkhalawai Village, P.O.
& P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur.
iv) Moirangthem Shabanam Devi, aged about 20 years, daughter of
late Moirangthem Bisho Singh, resident of Ngangkhalawai Village,
P.O. & P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur.
v) Moirangthem Mefius Devi, aged about 18 years, daughter of late
Moirangthem Bisho Singh, resident of Ngangkhalawai Village, P.O.
& P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur.
10. Shri Kumam Basanta Singh, aged about 48 years, son of late K.Kesho
Singh, resident of Ngangkhalawai Mamang Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang,
District Bishnupur, Manipur.
.... Pro-forma Respondents
CRP(CRP Art.227) No.22 of 2017 Page 2
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR
For the petitioner/defendant No.2 : Mr. Th.Henba, Advocate
For the respondents/plaintiffs : Mr. S.Sachindra Singh, Advocate
Date of Reserving Order : 27.04.2022
Date of Delivery of Order : 05.05.2022
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)
[1] The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227
of the Constitution, is defendant No.2 in O.S. No.8 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur. He filed Judicial Miscellaneous
Case No.297 of 2016 in the said suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 3 CPC,
claiming that he was in possession of the suit land and seeking a temporary
injunction restraining the plaintiffs and their men from entering into the suit land
during the pendency of the suit. By order dated 26.08.2016, the Trial Court
allowed his petition and directed that status quo as regards possession of the suit
land by defendant No.2 shall be maintained and restrained the plaintiffs and their
men from entering into the suit land till the disposal of the suit or until further
orders, whichever was earlier.
[2] Assailing the said order, the plaintiffs in the suit filed Miscellaneous
Civil Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 before the learned District Judge, Bishnupur.
This appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, vide order
dated 05.05.2017, setting aside the status quo order passed by the Trial Court in
favour of defendant No.2.
CRP(CRP Art.227) No.22 of 2017 Page 3
[3] Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.2 is before this Court by way of
this revision. By order dated 30.06.2017, this Court stayed the operation of the
order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur.
Thereafter, by order dated 06.9.2017, this Court directed that the interim order
granted earlier shall continue until further orders.
[4] Heard Mr. Th. Henba, learned counsel for the petitioner; and
Mr. S.Sachindra Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
[5] Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit.
[6] The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.8 of 2015 for a permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession over
the suit land or, in the alternative, for eviction of defendant No.3, who was stated
to have been engaged by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to take possession of the suit
land, and for delivery of possession of the suit land to them, in case defendant
No.3 was found to be in possession thereof. The suit land, in two schedules,
consisted of paddy fields in patta No.1101 (Old)/253(New) BT of Dag No.1284,
CS Dag No.1293 of Village No.51-Ngangkhalawai.
[7] It is clear from the suit prayer itself that the plaintiffs were not
certain as to their being in possession of the suit land. Perhaps this ambiguity on
their part stemmed from the earlier litigation involving their predecessor-in-title,
Khundrakpam Juge Singh. O.S. No.7 of 2010 was filed by him against defendant
Nos.1 and 2 in the present suit, and others, seeking declaration of his title as
regards the suit schedule properties therein and for other reliefs. The suit
schedule properties were comprised in four schedules and included the paddy
fields which form the suit land in the present suit. This aspect is not in dispute.
CRP(CRP Art.227) No.22 of 2017 Page 4
[8] By order dated 31.07.2013, the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Bishnupur, dismissed O.S. No.7 of 2010 holding that Khundrakpam
Juge Singh had failed to prove and establish that he was in possession of the
suit schedule properties. Civil Appeal No.2 of 2014 filed by Khundrakpam Juge
Singh before the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, was dismissed, vide
judgment and order dated 09.07.2014, affirming this finding of the Trial Court.
The Appellate Court specifically held that preponderance of probability was in
favour of the defendants and that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was in
possession of the suit lands at the time of institution of that suit.
[9] Significantly, the plaintiffs in O.S. No.8 of 2015 are none other than
the widow and children of Khundrakpam Juge Singh, Therefore, they claim
through him and would be bound by the findings in the earlier round of litigation.
This was the aspect that weighed with the Trial Court, as is clear from a perusal
of the order dated 26.08.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Bishnupur. Therefore, the Trial Court opined that the basic legal
requirements for grant of a temporary injunction, viz., existence of a prima facie
case, balance of convenience and the likelihood of irreparable loss/injury were
established by defendant No.2. The Trial Court accordingly directed that status
quo as regards his possession over the suit land be maintained and restrained
the plaintiffs from interfering therewith.
[10] In appeal, the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, failed to consider
the import of the earlier litigation and the findings rendered therein, which had
attained finality. Ignoring those weighty findings, the Appellate Court baldly
opined that it was not appropriate for the Trial Court to grant an order of status
CRP(CRP Art.227) No.22 of 2017 Page 5
quo in favour of defendant No.2. The Appellate Court held that defendant No.2
had to show that he was threatened with dispossession from the suit land by the
plaintiffs before he could seek such relief and as he had not established that the
balance of convenience was in his favour or that he would suffer irreparable
injury by any illegal act of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court ought not to have granted
an order in his favour. Stating so, the Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court's
status quo order and allowed the appeal.
[11] In this regard, the Appellate Court surprisingly overlooked the
averments in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.297 of 2016. In paragraph No.3
thereof, defendant No.2 specifically averred that when he along with his relation
went to the suit land on 15.06.2016 with a tractor for tilling operations, the
plaintiffs and some other persons came there and threatened them to leave the
suit land or face dire consequences. Pertinent to note, though written objections
were filed by the plaintiffs in the Judicial Miscellaneous Case, they did not deny
the averment of defendant No.2 as to what had happened on 15,06.2016. In the
light of the clear unrebutted allegation of defendant No.2, the Appellate Court
was incorrect in opining that he had not shown that there was a threat of
irreparable injury and damage from the plaintiffs.
[12] It is a settled proposition of law that even a defendant in a suit can
apply for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC. In Suganda
Bai vs. Sulu Bai and others, (AIR 1975 Karnataka 137), the Karnataka High
Court observed that a defendant can seek a temporary injunction against the
plaintiff, even without filing a counter claim, when and where the relief claimed
arises out of the plaintiff's cause of action or is incidental to it. In the present
CRP(CRP Art.227) No.22 of 2017 Page 6
case, the ambiguity in the suit prayer as to the plaintiffs' claim of possession over
the suit land coupled with the unrebutted allegation of defendant No.2 of specific
overt acts on the part of the plaintiffs posing a threat of damage and injury were
sufficient to give rise to a claim by defendant no.2 for a temporary injunction.
[13] Mr. S.Sachindra Singh, learned counsel, would contend that if there
was any doubt as to the plaintiffs' possession over the suit land, the Trial Court
ought to have merely directed status quo to be maintained as regards
possession instead of granting a temporary injunction in favour of defendant
No.2. However, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Th.Henba, learned counsel, such an
order of status quo without indicating in clear terms as to who is in possession
would only lead to further complications, if not a law and order situation. In
D.Albert vs. Lalitha and others (AIR 1989 Madras 73), the Madras High
Court observed that while ordering status quo, the Court is bound to decide,
prima facie, on the material available, whether the plaintiff is in possession or the
defendant is in possession and leaving the matter in doubt and ambiguity by
passing an order of status quo would result in more dangerous consequences
than even deciding wrongly but clearly that one of the parties is in possession.
[14] Given the totality of the circumstances and more particularly, the
vague suit prayer which manifested in no uncertain terms that the plaintiffs were
not even sure as to whether they were in possession, and given the findings in
the earlier round of litigation suffered by Khundrakpam Juge Singh, the plaintiffs'
predecessor-in-title, defendant No.2 clearly made out a prima facie case; the
balance of convenience tilted in his favour as there was a possibility of damage
to the suit land if the plaintiffs continued with their illegal acts of trying to interfere
CRP(CRP Art.227) No.22 of 2017 Page 7
with his possession and his agricultural operations; and any such action on their
part would cause him irreparable injury. The Trial Court was therefore perfectly
justified in granting him interim protection pending disposal of the suit. The
Appellate Court failed to consider the relevant issues in the proper perspective
and erred in setting aside the status quo order passed by the Trial Court.
[15] The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the
order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur, in
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal Case No.3 of 2016 and confirming the order dated
26.08.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur, in
Judicial Miscellaneous Case No.297 of 2016 (Ref: O.S. No.8 of 2015).
In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
FR/NFR
Opendro
CRP(CRP Art.227) No.22 of 2017 Page 8
