RUKMANI Vs. WELLINGTON CANTONMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred these appeals against the common order of the learned Judge in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 4207, 4206, 4205 and 4204 of 2001 wherein the suits filed by the appellants in O.S. Nos. 99, 96, 97 and 98 of 1999 respectively on the file of the learned District Munsif, Coonoor, were dismissed.

(2.) THE appellants herein, who are the tenants under the respondent, filed the said suits for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent- Cantonment from interfering with the peaceful possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the suit schedule property until the appellants are evicted under due process of law. Though originally interim injunction was granted, the same expired on 16.8.2000 and the appellants filed applications in LA. Nos. 467, 461, 463 and 465 of 1999 in O.S.Nos. 99, 96, 97 and 98 of 1999 respectively for extension of the interim injunction. Those applications were dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Coonoor, on 1.8.2001. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of the applications, the appellants preferred the Civil revision petitions in C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 4207, 4206, 4205 and 4204 of 2001 respectively. Though notice was served on the respondent, none represented for the respondent in the civil revision petitions. Hence, the learned Judge heard the counsel for the appellants and disposed of the revision petitions by order dated 26.4.2002. While disposing of the revision petitions, the learned Judge was of the view that since the lease in favour of the appellants expired by efflux of time, the appellants have no locus standi to seek for a decree of injunction as prayed for. Further, as there was no interim injunction in favour of the appellants, the suits have become infructuous and consequently, by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the learned Judge dismissed the suits. As against the said order, the present appeals had been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for respondent further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Kanhaiyalal Agrawal and others v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd. , 2001 (9) SCC 609 to support his contention that the appeals are not maintainable, as the order impugned in the appeals was passed by the learned Judge by exercising the Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While placing reliance on the precedents, it is for the Court to consider the facts and circumstances of the cases under which such orders were passed. Without going into the facts and circumstances, it is not possible for the Court to follow the precedents as if they are binding under all circumstances. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent, the Madhya Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition against the order of the Industrial Tribunal. Though the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same was converted into Article 227 and was disposed of. Hence, the Supreme Court held that as against the order of the learned single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no appeal would lie. In the case on hand, there is no lis of the suits is for consideration before the learned judge. Only the order in the interlocutory applications filed by the appellants for extension of the interim injunction was under consideration before the learned Judge. In our view, the learned judge has assumed jurisdiction to withdraw the suits and to dispose of the same by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent has no relevance to the facts of the present case.