9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;) in File No. 20/Appeal whereby the order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Munsiff Samba (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, directing the parties to maintain status quo on spot with respect to the suit property till the disposal of the main suit, has been reversed. 2. The appellate court while setting aside the order of status quo has directed the parties not to alienate the suit property or create third party interest over the same till the disposal of the main suit. 3. The brief facts that need a mention for the purpose of determining the controversy in hand reveal that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit land is u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. So far as question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss is concerned, the appellate Court opined that these too lie in favour of the defendants. The appellate Court further noted that the petitioner/plaintiff had not mentioned about the filing of earlier suit and its effect in the present suit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has a prima facie case. He further submits that the trial Court has appreciated all the three settled principles required for grant or refusal of temporary injunction and, therefore, the order of the trial Court is in consonance with the facts of the case and the law applicable. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on or it is found that it had acted illegally or with material irregularity in dismissing the plaintiff's application of temporary injunction, the High Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to reverse the order and substitute its discretion or views for the one exercised by the appellate Court. 12. It appears that the appellate Court has interfered with the injunction order passed by the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court had failed to consider the three principles for grant of injunction i.e. the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss and injury in proper perspective. 13. From the perusal of impugned order, it is revealed that the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
