High Court · 2025

1. Mr. Nikhil Bhat t , learned counsel for t he pet it ioner. a t em porary Pet it ioner is plaint iff, who filed a 2. suit of perpet ual inj unct ion in which he inj unct ion applicat ion. His prayer t em porary inj unct ion has been rej ect ed by t he t rial court vide order dat ed 11.09.2024. Feeling a m iscellaneous appeal. His appeal under Order 43 Rule 1( r) CPC was dism issed by Dist rict j udgm ent dat ed 21.02.2025. Feeling t rial court ’s order, as aggrieved by affirm ed by Appellat e Court , pet it ioner has approached t his Court . Rudraprayag aggrieved, preferred Judge,

3. Heard pet it ioner and perused t he record. learned counsel t he Learned t rial court has considered 4. t he fact s and circum st ances of t he plaint case and also t he t hree relevant fact ors, nam ely, prim a facie case, balance of convenience & irreparable inj ury and has com e t o t he conclusion t hat pet it ioner has not been able t o m ake out a prim a facie case t em porary for grant of inj unct ion.

5. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat t here is a fam ily set t lem ent , according t o which, t he court yard would be enj oyed by plaint iff as well as husband of respondent no. 2, however, in not t rial court has erred learned considering t he fam ily set t lem ent . set t lem ent ,

6. Law is well set t led t hat grant of t em porary inj unct ion is discret ionary and t his Court norm ally does not int erfere wit h t he discret ionary order passed by j urisdict ion. The court of com pet ent t he fam ily relied pet it ioner, has been disput ed by t he defendant s t o t he suit , t hus, it is a t riable issue as t o whet her t here was any fam ily set t lem ent bet ween t he part ies t o t he suit . This aspect has been dealt wit h by t he case Hon'ble Suprem e Court of Esha CHS Ekt a Lim it ed v. Municipal Mum bai report ed in ( 2012) 4 SCC 689. Para 19 & 20 of t he said j udgm ent are reproduced below: — Appart m ent s Corporat ion t he t his Court t he Court of “ 19. We have considered respect ive subm issions and carefully scrut inized t he t he appellat e Court 's record. The scope of power t o int erfere wit h an int erim order passed inst ance has been in several cases. considered by I n Wander Lt d. v. Ant ox I ndia ( P) Lt d. 1990 Supp SCC 727, t he Court was called upon t o t he correct ness of an order of consider 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: “ 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 has been shown t o have been exercised 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 t he court had ignored below if t he one reached by t hat court was reasonably possible on t he m at erial. The 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 t he discret ion has been conclusion. 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) Dongre v. Whirlpool Lt d. ( supra) , N.R. Corpn., ( 1996) 5 SCC 714 and observed: “ The rat io of t he above not ed j udgm ent s inst ance t hat once t he court of 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 t he court and is support ed by cogent 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, balance of convenience, irreparable inj ury and equit y.” t o I n such view of t he m at t er, learned 7. t rial court was j ust ified in not accept ing t he case of t he plaint iff on it s face value, which was based on a fam ily set t lem ent . Upon perusal of t rial court ’s order, t his Court is of t he opinion t hat pet it ioner had not been able t o m ake out a prim a facie case so as t o claim t em porary inj unct ion. Learned Appellat e Court t hus was right in not int erfering wit h t rial court ’s order. For t he aforesaid reasons, t his Court 8. declines t he m at t er. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. int erfere t o ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J) 10.03.2025 Aswal