HIGH TECH ORGANISATION Vs. ADDI DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the orders dated 2nd February, 2010 and 3rd June, 2009, passed by the learned Additinoal District Judge, No.4, Kota and the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Kota (North), respectively.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction came to be filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the respondents-defendants before the learned trial court along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court found prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff but imposed condition of submission of bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of Rs. 9,37,998/- vide order dated 3rd June, 2009. Aggrieved with the order dated 3rd June, 2009, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, which also stood dismissed vide order dated 2nd February, 2010 and the learned Appellate Court affirmed the order and maintained the condition. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below.

(3.) THE conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that this Court should not invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to upset the pure findings of fact of two courts below. THE scope of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. This extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked only when the judgment of the court below is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. I do not find any ground to upset the pure findings of fact and thus, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed and the impugned orders rendered by both the courts below do not warrant any intervention.