TANWANDI SECTOR-B Vs. DWARKA DAS AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 1st October, 2005 and 28th January, 2006 rendered by the Courts of Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) South, Kota and Additional District Judge No.2, Kota, respectively.

(2.) Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record, it is found that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application of Temporary Injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. After having heard both the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application of temporary injunction being the same devoid of any substance. Aggrieved with the order dated 1st October, 2005 rendered by the learned trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred an appeal and the appeal also stood dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Kota, vide order dated 28th January, 2006. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of two courts below. None of the courts below found that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff nor the courts found that the balance of convenience and point of irreparable loss were in his favour.

(3.) It is relevant to record at the very outset that the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held in plethora of cases that the High Court should not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to upset the pure finding of facts. It has also been held that the High Court should invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction only when the impugned orders are found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice.