Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2364 (ALL)

Mitrapal Singh v. Mohit Kumar Singh

2015-08-12

BHARAT BHUSHAN, HULUVADI G.RAMESH

body2015
JUDGMENT Huluvadi G. Ramesh and Bharat Bhushan, JJ. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials placed on record. 2. Instant appeal is preferred against the judgement and order dated 11.7.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 9, Moradabad in Origianl Suit No. 724 of 2013, (Mohit Kumar Vs Mitrapal Singh and others) whereby the application for interim injunction (paper No. 6 C) filed by the plaintiff respondent is allowed restraining the defendants appellants not to evict the plaintiffs respondents forcefully or to dispossess the plaintiffs respondents from the property in dispute. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs respondents instituted a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 3.8.2013 as well as for permanent injunction against the defendants appellants along with an application for interim injunction before the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Moradabad. The said suit was contested by the defendants appellants by filing objection to the application for interim injunction denying the assertions made in the plaint and the court below after hearing the parties have come to the conclusion that prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss lies in favour of the plaintiff respondent and accordingly allowed the interim injunction application by ordering the defendants appellants not to to evict the plaintiffs respondents forcefully or to dispossess the plaintiffs respondents from the property in dispute vide order dated 11.7.2014. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this court. 4. The challenge has been made by the defendant appellants on the ground that the defendants appellants have prima facie case in their favour as the registered sale deed has been executed in their favour by the plaintiff respondent after receiving the entire amount of sale consideration and the court below has not taken into consideration this fact. It is also contended that the defendants appellants are in possession over the property in dispute from the date of execution of the sale deed. It is further submitted that the evidences filed by the plaintiff respondent in support of the insanity of plaintiff respondent are highly doubtful and not trustworthy despite the court below has accepted the plea of insanity raised by the plaintiff respondent. 5. To the contrary, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that he is in possession over the property in dispute. 5. To the contrary, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that he is in possession over the property in dispute. It is the defendants appellants who have got the sale deed executed in their favour by playing a fraud upon the plaintiff respondent whereas the fact of the matter is that the plaintiff respondent is an insane person and taking advantage of this fact the defendants appellants have got the sale deed executed in their favour. 6. Be that as it may, we have gone through the impugned order in depth and find that the trial court after having gone through the entire material on record has returned a finding that the plaintiff respondent is in possession over the property in dispute and prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss lies in favour of the plaintiff respondent. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been decided by the court below after considering the material on record. Learned trial court has given cogent reasons in deciding the application. The grant of interim injunction or refusal of the same is in the discretion of the court. There is nothing on record to show that discretion has been exercised in an arbitrary manner. No illegality is seen in the impugned order which calls for interference of this court. The Appellate Court can interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court only in exceptional circumstances and the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except, where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. The Appellate Court cannot reassess the entire evidence so as to come to its own conclusion contrary to the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. 7. We have examined the impugned order passed by the court below within the limited scope whereas the main controversy involved in the suit is at large before the trial Court to be adjudicated through full-fledge trial. 7. We have examined the impugned order passed by the court below within the limited scope whereas the main controversy involved in the suit is at large before the trial Court to be adjudicated through full-fledge trial. The findings recorded by the trial Court at interlocutory stage of the suit are tentative in its nature and the court below shall always be at liberty to decide the case on its merit and as per evidence that may be led during the course of trial and decide the suit in accordance with law. 8. The appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs in this appeal.