KAVERAMMA Vs. PILLAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed against the grant of an injunction order by the Trial Court directing both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule properties, till the disposal of the suit. Along with the appeal, the appellants have filed an application to produce additional documents. This is in the face of the finding of the Trial Court that the defendants have failed to produce any documents in support of their contentions at the time of hearing on the application for injunction.

(2.) THE vehement submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the identity of the property itself is in dispute and by virtue of the order of status quo, the appellants are prevented from carrying on with the construction of their house premises which has reached the final stage and therefore it would be well-within the power of this Court to take into account the additional documents sought to be produced and consider the modification of the impugned order and in this regard, he relied upon the judgment reported in the case of M. s. Patel Enterprises, Bangalore v M. P. Ahuja and Others, and would emphasise that in an appropriate case and in the interest of justice, it is for the Appellate Court to take into account the evidence which may be produced at the appellate stage and grant appropriate relief.

(3.) I have perused the citation and it is clear from the very reading of the judgment that such exercise of power by the Appellate Court in receiving additional evidence at the appellate stage, even while considering an appeal challenging an interim order of temporary injunction could be exercised. In the given facts and circumstances, it is for this Court to decide whether such an exercise of power is warranted. The present case before me it is to be noticed that the defendants have not produced any documents before the Trial Court. The challenge to the impugned order is to consider whether the Trial Court has committed any error in exercising its jurisdiction or it has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or acted arbitrarily or capriciously in exercising its jurisdiction. It cannot be gainsaid that the impugned order reflects any such infirmity. It is to be further noticed that in the event the appellants did not have the documents, which they seek to rely upon, at the time of hearing of the application for temporary injunction, they would have been well-within their right to file an application under order 39, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and to seek indulgence of the Court to entertain such additional documents that they may want to rely upon and to reconsider the order passed in the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The appellants have not chosen to exercise this right available to them.