High Court · 2025

1. Mr. Siddhart ha Singh, counsel for t he pet it ioners. learned

2. Mr. Vinay Kum ar, learned counsel for t he respondent . defendant s inj unct ion respondent no. 1 also against one Madan 3. Pet it ioners Original Suit No. 248 of 2022 pending before t he Court of Civil Judge ( S.D.) , Dehradun. The said suit was filed by Anant Ram ( respondent no. 1 herein) for t he perm anent Lal pet it ioners ( respondent no. 2 herein) . Along wit h t he suit , filed a applicat ion. inj unct ion t em porary Learned t rial court allowed t he t em porary inj unct ion applicat ion vide order dat ed 06.07.2022 and defendant s t o t he suit were rest rained from int erfering wit h t he plaint iff’s possession over t he suit land. t he said order, Pet it ioners challenged passed by in a m iscellaneous appeal, which has been learned Dist rict Judge, dism issed by j udgem ent Dehradun dat ed 07.10.2022. Thus, feeling aggrieved, pet it ioners have approached t his Court . t rial court learned inj unct ion

4. Law is well set t led t hat grant of is discret ionary. t em porary Bot h t he court s below have exercised t heir discret ion aft er considering all relevant aspect s, including prim a facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable inj ury.

5. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioners t hat subm it s regarding disput e ident ificat ion of t he land, nam ely, as t o whet her t he const ruct ion being raised by pet it ioners over Plot Nos. 408 & 409, which was purchased by t hem t hrough a regist ered sale deed or t he const ruct ion raised by t hem is over Plot No. 410, t o plaint iff which allegedly belongs ( respondent no. 1 herein) . He furt her subm it s t hat t here is sufficient evidence on record t o show t hat t he const ruct ion has been raised over t he Plot Nos. 408 & 409 and no par t of t he const ruct ion is over Plot No. 410.

6. Mr. Vinay Kum ar, learned counsel t he respondent no. 1, appearing however, disput es t he said subm ission and he subm it s t hat pet it ioners have encroached over Plot No. 410 while raising const ruct ion, t herefore, learned court s below have right ly direct ed t he part ies t o m aint ain st at us quo qua land in quest ion. inj unct ion int erfere wit h

7. Grant of t em porary discret ionary and t he appellat e court will t he exercise of discret ion of court of first inst ance except where t he discret ion has been shown t o have been exercised arbit rarily, or capriciously or perversely or where t he court had ignored t he set t led principles law regulat ing grant or refusal of int erlocut ory inj unct ions. This aspect has been dealt wit h by Hon'ble Suprem e of Esha Ekt a Court Appart m ent s CHS Lim it ed v. Municipal Corporat ion Mum bai report ed in ( 2012) 4 SCC 689. Para 19 & 20 of t he said j udgm ent are reproduced below: — t he “ 19. We have considered respect ive t he subm issions and carefully scrut inized record. The scope of t he appellat e Court 's power t o int erfere wit h an int erim order passed t he t his Court t he Court of inst ance has been considered by in several cases. I ndia ( P) Lt d. 1990 I n Wander Lt d. v. Ant ox Supp SCC 727, t he Court was called upon t o consider t he correct ness of an order of inj unct ion passed by t he Division Bench of t he High Court which had reversed t he order of t he learned Single Judge declining t he respondent 's prayer for int erim relief. This Court set aside t he order of t he Division Bench and m ade t he following observat ions: ignored t he court had “ I n such appeals, t he appellat e court will not int erfere wit h t he exercise of discret ion of t he court of first inst ance and subst it ut e it s own discret ion except where t he discret ion t o have been exercised has been shown arbit rarily, or capriciously or perversely or t he set t led principles of law regulat ing grant or refusal of int erlocut ory inj unct ions. An appeal against exercise of discret ion is said t o be an appeal on principle. Appellat e court will not reassess t he m at erial and seek t o reach a conclusion different from t he one reached by t he court below if t he one reached by t hat court was t he m at erial. The reasonably possible on appellat e court would norm ally not be j ust ified in int erfering wit h t he exercise of discret ion under appeal solely on t he ground t hat if it had considered t he m at t er at t he t rial st age it would have com e t o a cont rary conclusion. t he discret ion has been exercised by t he t rial court reasonably and in a j udicial m anner t he fact t hat t he appellat e court would have t aken a different view m ay not j ust ify int erference wit h t he t rial court 's exercise of discret ion.” I f I nst it ut e

20. I n Skyline Educat ion ( I ndia) Pvt . Lt d. v. S.L. Vaswani, ( 2010) 2 SCC 142, t he 3-Judge Bench considered a som ewhat sim ilar quest ion in t he cont ext of t he refusal of t he t rial Court and t he High Court t o pass an order of t em porary inj unct ion, referred t o t he j udgm ent s in Wander Lt d. v. Ant ox I ndia ( P) Lt d. ( supra) , N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., ( 1996) 5 SCC 714 and observed: “ The rat io of t he abovenot ed j udgm ent s is t hat once t he court of first inst ance exercises it s discret ion t o grant or refuse t o grant relief of t em porary inj unct ion and t he said exercise of discret ion is based upon obj ect ive considerat ion of t he m at erial placed before is support ed by cogent t he court and reasons, t he appellat e court w ill be loat h t o int erfere sim ply because on a de novo considerat ion of t he m at t er it is possible for t he appellat e court form a different opinion on t he issues of prim a facie case, inj ury balance of convenience, irreparable and equit y.” t o inj unct ion

8. Since discret ionary and bot h t he court s below t heir discret ion aft er have exercised considering aspect s, t herefore, t his Court does not find any reason t o int erfere in t he m at t er. relevant t he

9. Accordingly, writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. However, learned t rial court is request ed t o m ake endeavour t o decide t he suit at an early dat e, wit hout being influenced by any observat ion m ade in t his order. ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 12.02.2025 Aswal