Section 115 CPC | Civil Revision Shall Not Lie Against Order Granting Interim Injunction: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior bench recently observed that no civil revision would lie against an order granting interim injunction passed by the Court under Order 39 Rule 1 &2.

The bench comprising Justice Satyendra Kumar Singh observed-

From bare perusal of the amended provisions of the first proviso to Section 115 of the CPC, it is apparent that civil revision shall not lie against an order of interim injunction, passed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC…In the instant case, since no alternate remedy was available to the petitioners against the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court, i.e., the Court of 10th District Judge, Gwalior under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, therefore, objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents about the maintainability of the petition on this ground also has no force at all.

Facts of the case were that the Petitioners/Plaintiff had file a suit for declaration of title and injunction against the Respondents. The suit was accompanied with an application under Order XXXIX R1, R2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction. The trial court, while deciding the applications seeking temporary injunction, partially allowed Petitioners’ application filed under Order XXXIX R1, R2 of CPC and restrained the Respondents from interfering in their possession over the disputed land. However, it rejected Petitioners’ prayer with regard to restraining the Respondents from constructing the boundary wall on the northern side of the disputed land. By the same order, the trial court rejected all the remaining three applications under Order XXXIX R1, R2 CPC.

Aggrieved, the Petitioners as well as the Respondents preferred an appeal against the order of the trial court. The lower appellate court set aside the injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering in the disputed land and further directed the trial court to decide all the applications under Order XXXIX R1, R2 of CPC afresh. The Petitioners moved review applications against the order of the lower appellate court but the same were rejected. Aggrieved, the Petitioners moved the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Objecting to the maintainability of the petition, the Respondents argued that lower appellate court had decided multiple miscellaneous appeals vide the impugned order. Hence, it was asserted that the Petitioners ought to have filed separate petitions for each miscellaneous appeal. It was further submitted that the Petitioners should have moved the Court under Section 115 of CPC by filing a revision petition and not a miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court did not concur with the submissions put forth by the Respondents. It noted that a bare perusal of the proviso to Section 115 of CPC makes it apparent that civil revision would not lie against an order passed under Order XXXIX R1, R2 of CPC. Therefore, the petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court upheld the maintainability of the petition filed by the Petitioners and based on the merits of the case, the petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Smt. Silky Jain & Ors. v. Yaadram Shivhare & Ors. [M.P. 2682/2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 60

Click Here To Read/Download Order