Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1626 - HC - Companies LawSuit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction - application for grant of ad interim relief filed in a Civil Suit - appeal against exercise of discretionary jurisdiction - Held that:- An appeal against exercise of discretionary jurisdiction is really an appeal in principle and that is why, unlike a regular appeal, in ordinary sense, where whole evidence on record is examined anew by appellate court, what is really examined, in an appeal against exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, is legality and validity of the order and it can be set aside and should be set aside only when there is a patent error on the face of the record or the order is against established or settled principles of law. If two views are possible and a view, which is reasonable and logical, has been adopted by Trial Court, the other view, howsoever appealing, would not be allowed to be substituted in place of the Trial Court's views, which are, otherwise, reasonable and logical. [See: Radhabari Tea Company (P) Ltd. v. Mridul Kumar Bhattacharjee and others - 2009 (12) TMI 501 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI]. Injunction is a discretionary relief pending adjudication of the suit. Discretion has to be exercised on sound principles keeping in mind golden principles governing grant of injunction. Appeal against exercise of discretion is an appeal on principle. Appellate Court would normally not interfere with exercise of discretion if conclusion reached by Trial Court is reasonably possible based on materials on record. [Vide: Sharmila Vijay Shetty v. Hemendra Prasad Barooah and others - 2012 (11) TMI 1225 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. The Court's interference is also necessary to protect plaintiff from species of irreparable injury before he can establish his title before Trial Court. In case suit property is allowed to be wasted, damaged or alienated the trial itself shall become infructuous and purposeless. Nature of controversy, nature of suit and particular rights asserted by parties, which give rise to be triable Issue, require to be determined/adjudicated upon, on the basis of evidence in main suit. Once status of parties is in issue in a regularly instituted suit, due course of law had to be applied for determination of nature of parties' possession over property in question. From above it is deducible that meaning of 'status quo' is that the court is not adjudicating rights of parties finally. By passing the order of status quo, the civil court only gives direction to parties in terms of the order passed by said court, without giving any finding on any of the issues in respect of which order of status-quo was passed and legal commutation of the word 'status quo', it implies existence state of things at the said given point of time. The Trial Court has taken into account all above aspects of matter while passing order of status quo. Having said so, impugned order, passed by court below in the present case, need not be interfered with because interference, at this stage, will disturb the whole Lis. The appeal on hand is devoid of any merit and is accordingly, dismissed
|