GENERAL PUBLIC GRAM GHADANA THROUGH REPRESENTATIVES KISHAN LAL AND ORS. Vs. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIV.), SRI MAHAVEER JI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT .

(2.) SHRI Shailendra Khandelwal and Shri Pankaj Gupta, Advocates, appear for the contesting respondents. Other respondents are only formal/Proforma respondents, their their service is dispensed with. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The plaintiff -petitioner instituted a suit for permanent injunction along -with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, which was dismissed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred but without success. Both the courts below refused to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff -petitioner. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the courts below for refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff -petitioner. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding in respect of prima -facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. : [1984]1SCR211 , held that in exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal.