WPMS/264/2012
2021 Latest Caselaw 3040 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL
     ON THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
                         BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     Writ Petition (M/S) No. 264 of 2012



BETWEEN:

Sri Harihar Peeth Ashram
and another.                                     ....Petitioners
     (By Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate)



AND:

Kailashanand Mission
Trust & others                            ....Respondents
     (By Mr. Shankar Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ramji
     Srivastava, Advocate)




                       JUDGMENT

             By   means        of    this       writ    petition,
petitioners    have     challenged        the    order      dated

05.09.2007 passed by learned trial Court [Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kotdwar] in Original Suit No. 37 of 2006. By the said order, the Temporary Injunction Application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was allowed.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed a Misc. Civil Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C., which was registered as Misc.

Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2007. The said appeal was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar, vide judgment and order dated 01.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved by these two orders, petitioners have approached this Court.

3. It is settled position in law that temporary injunction is a discretionary relief and this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by learned Courts below, unless such exercise is patently illegal.

4. I have gone through both the orders passed by learned Courts below. In the present case, learned Courts below have considered the matter in great detail and have recorded findings on the three relevant factors, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury before granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the orders passed by learned Courts below.

5. In such view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin