Skip to content


Ravad Raibari and anr. Vs. Patarala Gouri Mahalaxmi Rajmani - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 53 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Ori58; 42(1976)CLT892
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 - Order 39, Rule 1
AppellantRavad Raibari and anr.
RespondentPatarala Gouri Mahalaxmi Rajmani
Appellant AdvocateS. Mohanty and ;S.D. Das, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateY.S.R. Murty, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 411. 5. it is fairly well settled that grant or refusal of temporary injunction rests on sound exercise of discretion and it cannot be lightly interfered with unless it is shown that such exercise of discretion is unreasonable or capricious. it may be that the petitioners have good grounds to urge on the basis of this order as to why the injunction should not be granted, but the best weapon is of no use unless it is used at the proper time......for a permanent injunction against the defendants-petitioners restraining them from going upon the suit lands. she claimed to have taken the suit lands on annual lease from the revenue department and contended that she was threatened with dispossession by the defendants. the defendant's contention was that the suit lands were covered by the annual lease granted in their favour. 3. the plaintiff filed a petition for temporary injunction which was opposed by the defendants. the learned munsif on a consideration at the pleadings along with the documents filed by the parties came to the finding that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in her favour. accordingly, he granted the temporary injunction sought for. on appeal the learned district judge.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.K. Mohanti, J.

1. This Civil Revision is directed against an appellate order of the learned District Judge of Berhampur confirming an order of temporary injunction.

2. The opposite party filed Title Suit No. 80 of 1973 for a permanent injunction against the defendants-petitioners restraining them from going upon the suit lands. She claimed to have taken the suit lands on annual lease from the Revenue Department and contended that she was threatened with dispossession by the defendants. The defendant's contention was that the suit lands were covered by the annual lease granted in their favour.

3. The plaintiff filed a petition for temporary injunction which was opposed by the defendants. The learned Munsif on a consideration at the pleadings along with the documents filed by the parties came to the finding that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in her favour. Accordingly, he granted the temporary injunction sought for. On appeal the learned District Judge confirmed the order of injunction.

4. Mr. S. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case. According to him, the identity of the suit lands has not been established and the plaintiff's lease has not been renewed after 31st March, 1976. He filed a certified copy of the order of the Tahasildar, Berhampur to show that the plaintiff was not in cultivating possession of any portion of the land appertaining to Survey No. 411.

5. It is fairly well settled that grant or refusal of temporary injunction rests on sound exercise of discretion and it cannot be lightly interfered with unless it is shown that such exercise of discretion is unreasonable or capricious. The two courts of fact, on careful consideration of the respective contentions of the parties and the documents produced by them, concurrently held that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is in her favour. I see no legal infirmity or material irregularity in their orders. The Tahasildar's order dated 2-12-1975 has been filed in this Court to show that the plaintiff is not in possession of any portion of the suit Survey No. 411. No such evidence was produced before the courts below. It may be that the petitioners have good grounds to urge on the basis of this order as to why the injunction should not be granted, but the best weapon is of no use unless it is used at the proper time.

6. The exercise of revisional power is purely discretionary. The revisional court cannot interefere where there is no patent violation of law or any perversity manifested in the order. It cannot, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115, correct errors of fact however gross they may be unless it has relation to the jurisdiction of the court. No question of jurisdiction or defect of procedure is involved in the present case. It is not shown that the Courts below have ignored any relevant fact. There is therefore no sufficient ground for interference with the impugned order by a revisional Court.

7. In the result, the Civil Revision is dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

8. As the suit is ripe for hearing and it is pending for more than three years the learned Munsif is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously and, if possible, by 15th September, 1976. The lower court records be sent back forthwith.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //