Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent.
The facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a suit before the respondent no.1, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haveli, Faizabad, which was registered as Suit No.44 of 2010, Fateh Bahadur and others Vs. Salik Ram and others, and in the said application for grant of interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has been moved by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the purpose of grant of temporary injunction in the said application pleaded by the petitioner that on the basis of documentary evidence that the land in dispute belongs to him and further also given certain evidence in support of his case in order to enable him to get a temporary injunction in his favour but the court below has not considered the said material and issued notices to the respondents thereby calling the reply/objection before granting the temporary injunction as prayed by the petitioner. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said action on the part of the court below is totally without jurisdiction and contrary to law as provided under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The legal position on the subject for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. is now well settled and the same can be summarized as under:-
(1) Interim relief should not be granted merely by asking that there must be sufficient ground for granting such relief.
(2) Interim relief which amounts to final relief which could have been granted at the time of final determination of the case should not be granted.
(3) In exceptional circumstances where the fact situation requires the Court to pass an interim relief amounts to final relief, the Court must record the reasons so that its correctness may be examined by the party/revisional court.
Further while granting the temporary injunction the three necessary factors namely prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience must be considered by the courts (see Deoraj Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2004(5) AWC 4246 (SC) and Kashi Math Samsthan & Another Vs. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & another J T 2009 (15) SC 33.
In the instant case on the application moved by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction the court below after considering the facts of the case for its prima facie satisfaction before considering the matter for grant of injunction has issued the notice to the respondent to file their objection/reply and fixed the next date for the disposal of the matter in question so there is neither any illegality nor infirmity committed by the court below in passing the order under challenged in the present writ petition in view of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above.
For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
However, in the interest of justice, the court below is directed to disposed off the matter in question after hearing the counsel for the parties in accordance with law, expeditiously, if possible at an early date.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010 Pramod