JAMILA Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 2nd January, 2006 and 27th July, 2005, rendered by the Courts of Additional District Judge No.4, Kota and Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) South, Kota, respectively.

(2.) Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is found that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit together with an application of temporary injunction against the defendant-petitioner. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 27/07/2005 allowed the application and granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Aggrieved with the order dated 27th July, 2005 the petitioner-defendant preferred an appeal and the appeal also stood dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota vide order dated 2/1/2006. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of two courts below.

(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.