AJAY SHUKLA Vs. ARVIND PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13.1.2012 passed in Civil Suit No.15-A/2011 by the First Addl. District Judge, Chhindwara, granting temporary injunction on an application made by respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs against the appellant/defendant No.1. It is contended that various facts were not considered by the Court below and improperly holding that there is a prima facie case made out in favour of respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs, balance of convenience in favour of the respondents and irreparable loss which may cause to the respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs, the injunction is granted. It is contended that in case the pleadings and evidence produced by the parties are considered by this Court, it would be clear that no case was made out to grant any 2 injunction in favour of the respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs. Thus, it is contended that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. The application of respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction is liable to be rejected.

(2.) IT is contended in reply by learned Senior counsel for respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs that the prima facie case was made out as was indicated by the respondents in their application. On the basis of unregistered Will, a claim was made by the appellant, whereas, the claim putforth by the respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs was based on a registered Will. This being so, it was rightly held by the Court below that a triable question was involved and since it was found that the respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed property, in case such a protection is not extended to the respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs, irreparable loss would be caused to them. On the other hand, in case of failure of the suit, the appellant/defendant No.1 would not be prejudicially affected. Thus, it is contended that the order passed by the Court below is just and proper and need not be interfered with in this appeal. IT is contended that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) AFTER due appreciation of the submissions made by learned Senior counsels, perusal of the record as produced before this Court, it is clear that no case is made out to interfere with the order of temporary injunction granted by the Court below. It is to be examined whether the Court below was required to pass any order of imposing any condition on the respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs while granting the temporary injunction. The Apex Court in the case of Gujrat Bottling Company Limited (supra) has considered all these aspects. The given circumstances are required to be seen. It is also held by the Apex Court that need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against the injury resulting from having been prevented from exercising the legal rights which could not be adequately compensated. What the legal rights are available to the appellant at the moment and whether on the basis of such right, any compensation is required to be granted to the 5 appellant is not yet established. From the record, it is clear that the respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs have produced such documents in the suit which if proved, will indicate that the respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs were right in claiming such rights. The Court below has found that the appellant/ defendant No.1 has failed to produce such documentary evidence to indicate that he was in actual physical possession of the land in dispute. Under such circumstances, ultimately after recording of the evidence of the parties, if the Court below reaches to the conclusion that the appellant was in physical possession of the land, the Court below would be required to pass appropriate decree under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, granting even the mesne profits against the respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs to the appellant/defendant No.1.