Civil Law – Scope of interference limited by Court of Appeal with temporary injunction passed by Magistrate’s Court: High Court of Rajasthan

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur observed that the scope of interference by the appellate court is limited where the magistrate court has exercised its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the plaintiffs. defendants.

Judge Sudesh Bansalwhile having the means, observed,

“This Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case where the Court of Appeal should exercise its power to interfere with the temporary injunction order made by the trial court. Thus, no interference is necessary with the contested order and, therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed.”

In the present case, the petitioner challenged an order under which a request filed under Ordinance 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was granted and during the trial of the civil action for specific execution filed by the respondent no. 1-plaintiff, the appellants-the defendants were forced not to transfer the disputed land and to maintain the status quo until the decision of the civil action.

The consideration before this Court is that where the trial court has exercised its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, should this Court interfere with the temporary injunction order made by the trial court, under its appellate jurisdiction?

The court held that under Ordinance 39, Rules 1 and 2 CCP, it is res integra that if the trial court has exercised its discretion in granting an injunction, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to interfere is very limited. The court observed that interference can only be made in situations where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that the trial court acted arbitrarily or contrary to law or that the findings of the trial court are perverse or capricious, patently incorrect and totally indefensible. If the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, there is no need for the Court of Appeal to interfere with it, the court added.

The court was of the view that the issues raised by the appellant in this Court, disputing either questions of fact or questions of law, can be decided by the trial court during the trial at the proper stage and it is not not permitted in law to usurp the jurisdiction of the trial court by the appellate court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction against the order granting the interim injunction.

The court reiterated that all of these factual and legal issues can be considered by the trial court during the trial and after recording the parties’ evidence. The court added that in this case, the trial court cannot be said to have exercised its discretion and fair jurisdiction in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The contested order cannot be qualified as an abusive order or is vitiated by serious illegality or a jurisdictional error; moreover, the view taken by the trial court is not an impossible view, the court observed.

The court relied on Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot v. Baldev Dass (2004)in which Apex Court held that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is established by a party to the suit, the court should not allow the nature of the property to be altered, which which also includes alienation or transfer of ownership which may lead to loss or damage to the party who may ultimately prevail and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

In addition, we also relied on Dev Prakash vs. Indra (2018) in which the Supreme Court observed that the very essence of the concept of temporary injunction and receivership for the duration of a civil litigation involving property is to prevent its threat of waste, damage and alienation by any party thereto, to the immeasurable prejudice of the other party or to make the situation irreversible not only to influence the final decision but also to render illusory the reparation granted.

The court observed that prima facie consideration must also be given to the nature of the loss, harm or injury that would be caused to the party if they were restrained by temporary injunction during the trial.

The court observed that the trial court’s order was eloquent and reasoned, as the trial court found that there was a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, after weighing the respective pleadings, documents and other present circumstances. Apart from the prima facie case, the trial court also independently dealt with the points of balance of convenience and irreparable harm, the court added.

Appearing for the appellant, Adv. Sukriti Kasliwal argued that the trial court committed gross illegality and perversity in granting the injunction in the present case, while the civil suit for specific execution itself is bad in law and is not likely to succeed on the merits, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any temporary joinder in his favor.

Case title: Rudresh Jhunjhunwala and Ors. vs. Satish Kumar and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 54

Click here to read/download the judgment

Comments are closed.