Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 217 (HP)

Radha Devi v. Nirmal Kochar

2014-03-19

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Smt. Radha Devi, defendant before the trial Court, has assailed the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 17-S/14 of 2013, titled as Smt. Radha Devi vs. Smt. Nirmal Kochhar & others, affirming the order dated 1.7.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Arki, District Solan, H.P., in C.M.A. No. 184/6 of 2012, titled as Nirmal Kochher vs. Giri Raj & others. 2. Trial Court, in an application filed by plaintiff Smt. Nirmal Kochher (respondent herein), under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, directed as under: “15. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, the application is hereby allowed and the respondents are restrained from causing interference and dispossessing the applicant from the suit land comprised in khata khatauni No. 234/49 min 393, khasra No. 449 measuring 0-24-50 Hect. khasra No. 450, measuring 0-12-32 hect., khasra No. 451, measuring 0-00-55 hect., khasra No. 452, measuring 0-03-48 hect., khasra No. 455, measuring 0-00-42, khasra No. 456, measuring 0-03-14 hect., situated in village Uchagaon, P.O. Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., till the final disposal of the main suit. However, the aforesaid findings shall have no bearing or effect on the merit of the case. The application stand disposed off and after its due completion be tagged with the main case file.” This order stands affirmed by the lower appellate Court. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out in the present petition. Courts below have recorded their satisfaction with regard to the plaintiff’s case. Settled principles of law, for grant of interim injunction stand considered and applied. Balance of convenience, prima facie strong case and irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, are factors which have weighed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is an old lady, aged 70 years. Her apprehension of encroachment of her land on the hands of defendant cannot be said to be unfounded. As such, her possession needs to be protected till such time, rights of the parties, based on their pleadings, are adjudicated by the trial Court. 4. Plaintiff is an old lady, aged 70 years. Her apprehension of encroachment of her land on the hands of defendant cannot be said to be unfounded. As such, her possession needs to be protected till such time, rights of the parties, based on their pleadings, are adjudicated by the trial Court. 4. In support of the petitioner’s case learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the apex Court in State of U.P. & others vs. Ram Sukhi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 733 . I am afraid the ratio laid down is totally inapplicable to the given facts. The Court was dealing with a case where in a writ petition, interim directions were issued which in effect amounted to allowing the petition itself, without adjudication of the respective rights, controversies and issues involved. 5. Relying upon the decisions rendered by the apex Court in Kashi Math Samsthan & another vs. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy & another, (2010) 1 SCC 689 and Narendra Kante vs. Anuradha Kante & others, (2010) 2 SCC 77 it is urged that plaintiff’s conduct disentitles grant of relief of injunction. 6. The apex Court itself has repeatedly held that each case has to be considered on its own merits. Settled principles of law have to be applied to the given facts. 7. Ad-interim injunction can be granted if plaintiff is able to prima facie satisfy the Court about the genuineness and strength of its case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, which may be caused in the event of failure to grant interim injunction. The lower appellate Court in para-11 of the judgment has gone into the alleged violations on the part of petitioner with respect to domestic laws. There is neither any illegality, perversity or error apparent on the face of record warranting interference by this Court. 8. Hence for all the aforesaid reasons, petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.