Civil Law- Appellate Court's Scope Of Interference Limited With Temporary Injunction Passed By Trial Court : Rajasthan High Court

Justice Sudesh Bansal, while disposing of the plea, observed,

"This Court is of considered view that this is not a fit case where the appellate court should exercise its power to interfere with the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed."

In the present matter, the petitioner has challenged an order whereunder an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was allowed and during the course of trial of the civil suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff, the appellants-defendants have been restrained not to transfer the disputed land and to maintain status quo until the decision of the civil suit.

The consideration before this Court is that when the trial court has exercised its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction to grant the temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff and against defendants, should this Court interfere with the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court, under its appellate jurisdiction?

The court ruled that under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, it is res integra that if the trial court exercised its discretion in granting injunction, then jurisdiction of Appellate Court to interfere is very limited. The court observed that the interference can be made only in situations where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the trial Court has acted arbitrarily or contrary to law or that findings of trial Court are perverse or capricious, palpably incorrect and are wholly untenable. If the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view, the same is not required to be interfered with by the Appellate Court, added the court.

The court opined that the issues raised by the appellant before this Court either disputing the factual issues or the legal issues, are amenable to be adjudicated by the trial court during course of trial of suit at appropriate stage and it is not permissible in law to usurp the jurisdiction of trial court by the appellate court, while exercising it appellate jurisdiction against the order of grant of temporary injunction.

The court reiterated that all these factual and legal issues are open to be considered by the trial court during the course of trial and after recording the evidence of parties. The court added that in the present case, it cannot be said that the trial court has exercised discretion and equitable jurisdiction in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. The order impugned may not be said to be a perverse order or suffers from grave illegality or jurisdictional error; moreover, the view taken by the trial court is not an impossible view, observed the court.

The court relied on Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot v. Baldev Dass (2004), wherein Apex Court ruled that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings.

Further, reliance was also placed on Dev Prakash v. Indra (2018) wherein the Supreme Court observed that it is the very essence of the concept of temporary injunction and receivership during the pendency of a civil litigation involving any property is to prevent its threatened wastage, damage and alienation by any party thereto, to the immeasurable prejudice to the other side or to render the situation irreversible not only to impact upon the ultimate decision but also to render the relief granted, illusory.

The court observed that prima facie, it is also required to be considered that what nature of loss or injury or prejudice would be caused to the party, if he is restrained by way of temporary injunction during the course of trial.

The court observed that the trial court's order was well-speaking and reasoned as the trial court has found prima facie case in favour of plaintiff, after appreciation of the respective pleadings, documents and other attending circumstances. Apart from the prima facie case, the trial court has also independently dealt with the points of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, added the court.

Appearing for the appellant, Adv. Sukriti Kasliwal argued that the trial court has committed serious illegality and perversity in granting the injunction in the present case whereas the civil suit for specific performance itself stand bad in law and is not liable to succeed on merits, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled for any temporary junction in his favour.

Case Title: Rudresh Jhunjhunwala and Ors. v. Satish Kumar and Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 54

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment