RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTAS Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAHARAJGANJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners had instituted a suit being Original Suit No. 271 of 1997, in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division against defendant opposite party No. 3 for injunction. In the said suit an application for temporary injunction was filed for restraining the defendant from making construction in the disputed property. By an order dated 6.3.1998 the learned trial court has rejected the application for injunction. An appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1998, was preferred by the petitioners. By an order dated 24.3.1998, the learned Additional District Judge. Maharajganj had dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge. Against these two orders, the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners.

(2.) Mr. Swaraj Prakash. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below on merits had wrongly come to a conclusion that the petitioners were not able to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction and also failed to consider the question of balance of convenience and inconvenience. According to him the refusal to grant injunction amounts to refusal to exercise his jurisdiction vested on him. While passing the said order, both the Courts below committed gross material Irregularity and illegality resulting into gross injustice. Therefore, the said orders should be set aside and injunction according to him at least to the extent of status quo should be granted.

(3.) He also relies on the decision in the case of Dalpat Kumar and another v. Prahlad Singh and others, AIR 1993 SC 276, particularly paragraph 5 thereof. According to him on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has failed in its duty as has been laid down through the ratio decided in the said case.