By What Practice Legal Provisions Were Mentioned In Order's Operative Portion?: Allahabad High Court Seeks ADJ's Explanation

Noticing that in the operative portion of an order passed in Appeal, the Lower/appellate Court had mentioned provisions of law, under which the order was made, the Allahabad High Court has sought the reply of Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court-II, Ballia explaining his action.

"Mentioning of the provisions of the law in the operative portion of the order is not something expected prima facie of a trained Judge, who is not a lay Court," the Bench of Justice J.J. Munir remarked as it sought the reply of the ADJ on or before February 17, 2022.

The case in brief 

Essentially, a suit for cancellation of a registered Will was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant (petitioner before the HC, one Ratna Devi). Besides this, a permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the defendant-petitioner from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the house in question.

Significantly, a temporary injunction application was also made and that came to be rejected by the Trial Court.

Challenging the same, the plaintiff-respondent moved to the appellate court, which reversed the order and granted an injunction in the widest possible terms restraining defendants (petitioner before the High Court) from taking any action qua the suit property till the decision of the suit.

Against the order of the Appellate court, the petitioner (original defendant) filed a plea under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. It was argued that on the basis of the order of the appellate court, the defendant-respondent, who had been granted all the property, subject matter of the registered Will executed by her mother-in-law, was now in peril of being removed from her hands.

It was further argued that in a suit for cancellation of a registered Will, though it may be the burden of the defendant-petitioner to prove the Will that she propounds, the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to an injunction, that virtually erodes her entire rights to be in possession of the suit property, of which she is the owner by virtue of being the legatee under the impugned Will.

Lastly, it was also submitted that the Appellate Court had not recorded any findings regarding a clear prima facie case and had written more of case law than to appraise facts and evidence on record for the purpose of returning relevant findings on the three ingredients involved in a temporary injunction matter.

Court's order

At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner's name is recorded in the Khatauni and there is a registered Will in her favor relating to the disputed property. Further, the Court also noted that there are remarks by the Appellate Court that the temporary injunction order has been granted contrary to principles, but how a case prima facie is made out, has not been indicated.

To this, the Court sought the reply of the Additional District Judge to indicate in his report by what practice, he mentioned various provisions of the law in the operative portion of the order, which ought to carry just the final directions made in the Appeal; neither reasons nor law.

Lastly, opining that a prima facie case was made out, the Court issued the notice of motion and ordered the parties to maintain status-quo until further orders and thereafter, listed the petitioner for orders on February 17, 2022.

Case title - Ratna Devi v. Triyug Narayan Mishra And 2 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order