Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1567 (RAJ)

Chhail Bihari v. Mahesh Chand Jain

2014-09-23

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Kumher, District Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 19.7.2013 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-defendant, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff, Mahesh Chand Jain, had filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction against the petitioner-defendant, Chhail Bihari. In the plaint, the respondent-plaintiff had claimed that the petitioner-defendant had rented out a shop to him. He was running a business of selling medicines. However, the petitioner was bent upon getting the respondent evicted from the shop without following the procedure established by law. Therefore, he prayed that the petitioner be restrained from dispossessing him from the rented shop.The petitioner filed the written statement and denied the averments made therein and raised certain objections. However, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 18.2.2012, the learned trial court granted interim order in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. It directed the petitioner not to dispossess the respondent-plaintiff from the shop. Meanwhile, the respondent-plaintiff filed two writ petitions before this Court, namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17670/2012 and 1418/2013. In the first writ petition, he sought police protection for himself, and in the second writ petition, he sought relief that electric connection which was disconnected by the petitioner, should be restored. However, by orders dated 9.11.2012 and 11.2.2013, while disposing of the writ petitions, this Court granted liberty to the respondent-plaintiff to move the necessary application before the learned trial court. Since the respondent-plaintiff was aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2013, he filed a special appeal before a Division Bench, namely D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 423/2013. By order dated 5.7.2013, the learned Division Bench directed the learned trial court to decide the application for temporary injunction itself.Consequently, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 19.7.2013, the learned trial court not only allowed the temporary injunction application, but also directed the petitioner to unlock the shop and to restore the electric connection. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2013, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.2013, he filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, by order dated 12.11.2013, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal, and upheld the order dated 19.7.2013. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court:- Firstly, both the courts below have travelled beyond the prayer made in the temporary injunction application. According to him, in the temporary injunction application the respondent-plaintiff did not pray that the lock should be removed and that the electric connection should be restored. Secondly, according to the petitioner, the possession of the shop was never with the respondent-plaintiff, but continued to be with him. Therefore, the learned trial court has committed an error in concluding that the prima facie case is in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Lastly, while passing the judgment, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reasons, therefore, both the orders deserve to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders dated 19.7.2013 and 12.11.2013. 5. It is, indeed, trite to state that even at the initial stage of dealing with the temporary injunction application, the court is required to do justice to both the parties. For, at this juncture, conflicting interest of the parties need to be balanced by the court. The court is also required to safeguard the majesty of the court and of the law. Therefore, the court is free to mould the relief according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the court is not confined only to the relief being prayed for in a temporary injunction application. In certain cases, the Court may travel beyond the prayer in order to do justice to the parties. 6. In the present case, undoubtedly, after hearing both the parties on 18.2.2012, the learned trial court has passed an interim order and directed the petitioner not to dispossess the respondent-plaintiff without following the due process of law. Despite the fact that such direction had been given, the petitioner tried to overreach the order by placing his lock on the shop and by the electric connection dis-connected. It is, in these circumstance, that the plaintiff also had to rush to this court praying that the lock should be unlocked and electric connection should be restored. Despite the fact that such direction had been given, the petitioner tried to overreach the order by placing his lock on the shop and by the electric connection dis-connected. It is, in these circumstance, that the plaintiff also had to rush to this court praying that the lock should be unlocked and electric connection should be restored. After all, by such an act, the petitioner has jeopardised the right to livelihood of the respondent. Moreover, he had tried to overreach the order of the court. Therefore, while hearing temporary injunction application, the learned trial court was also required to do justice to the respondent-plaintiff, who was running from pillar to post hoping to protect his fundamental right to livelihood and to life itself. 7. A bare perusal of the order dated 19.7.2013 clearly reveals that the learned Judge has noticed the fact that despite the fact that the petitioner claimed that the shop was in his possession, despite the fact that the petitioner claimed that he never placed any lock on the shop, and did not get the electric connection dis-connected, the report of the Commissioner was absolutely against the stand taken by the petitioner. According to the Commissioner's report, when he visited the shop in question, there was, indeed, a lock placed on the shop and the electric connection was dis-connected. Thus, Commissioner's report clearly supported the case of the respondent-plaintiff. Hence, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in concluding that the respondent-plaintiff had a prima facie case in his favour, had a balance of convenience in his favour and that an irreparable loss would be caused to him in case temporary injunction order were not granted to him. Merely because the learned Magistrate has directed the petitioner to remove his lock, and to restore the electric connection, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has travelled beyond the relief prayed for in the temporary injunction application. After all, the learned Magistrate had to keep in mind the subsequent developments of the case after the interim order dated 18.2.2012 was passed and the learned Magistrate had to do justice to the plaintiff-respondent. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 12.1.2013 also reveals that the learned Judge has given cogent and legal reasons for upholding the order dated 19.7.2013. 9. 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 12.1.2013 also reveals that the learned Judge has given cogent and legal reasons for upholding the order dated 19.7.2013. 9. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in both the impugned orders. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******