Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Puluputhuri Venkataramana vs Galiveti Siva Rami Reddy on 19 January, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
C.R.P.No.2559 OF 2022 & C.R.P.No.2652 OF 2022
CRP No.2559 of 2022:
Between:
Puluputhuri Venkataramana,
S/o P. Venkata Ramaiah, Hindu,
Aged 35 years, Occ; Cultivation,
r/o. Rachapalli (V), H/o. Ganganeru,
Ramapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...Petitioner/D3
And
1. Galiveti Siva Rami Reddy,
S/o G. Narayana Reddy, Hindu,
Aged 45 years, Correspondent in Agricultural
College, Chennamukkapalli (V),
Rayachoti Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.
... Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff.
2. Galiveti Nagulamma,
W/o G. Narayana Reddy, Hindu,
Aged 63 years, House Hold, r/o. Rachapalle (V),
H/o. Ganganeru, Ramapuram Mandal,
YSR Kadapa District.
3. Galiveti Chayamukhi,
D/o Chandramohan Reddy, Hindu,
Aged about 24 years, House Hold,
R/o Rachapalle (V), H/o. Ganganeru,
Ramapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.
... Respondents/Respondents/
Defendant Nos. 1 & 2.
Counsel for the appellant : Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala.
Counsel for respondent : Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri.
Page 2 of 22 SRS,J
CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022
CRP No.2652 of 2022:
Puluputhuri Venkataramana,
S/o P. Venkata Ramaiah, Hindu,
Aged 35 years, Occ; Cultivation,
R/o Rachapalli (V), H/o. Ganganeru,
Ramapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. .. Petitioner/
Respondent/D-3.
Vs.
Galiveti Siva Rami Reddy,
S/o G. Narayana Reddy, Hindu,
Aged 45 years, Correspondent in Agricultural
College, Chennamukkapalli (V),
Rayachoti Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District.
... Respondent/Appellant/
Plaintiff.
Counsel for the appellant : Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala.
Counsel for respondent : Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri
:: COMMON ORDER ::
The 3rd defendant in the suit filed the above two revisions against separate Orders dated 21.10.2022 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.04 of 2022 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 05 of 2022.
2. The suit in O.S.No.77 of 2021 was filed by the 1st respondent in Civil Revision Petition being the plaintiff, seeking Specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.05.2012. The plaintiff is son of 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is daughter of Chandramohan Reddy, who is another son of 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is stranger to the family.
Page 3 of 22 SRS,J
CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022
3. In the plaint, it was inter alia contended that the 1st defendant purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 25.10.1993. The vendor of the 1st defendant purchased the property under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.1494 of 1986 and 1495 of 1986. The plaintiff purchased the schedule property under un- registered agreement of sale dated 18.05.2012 by paying entire sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The 1st defendant orally delivered the possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff on the same day and since the date of execution of agreement, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The 1st defendant also handed over the original document to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff by suspecting the bonafidies of 1st defendant, verified the records and came to know about the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant in turn executed the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant. Hence, the 1st respondent in these Civil Revision Petitions being the plaintiff filed suit, seeking specific performance and other reliefs.
4. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.264 of 2021 seeking grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.265 of 2021 for grant of injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from alienating the schedule property. Page 4 of 22 SRS,J
CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022
5. The 3rd defendant in the suit, filed counter claim, vide I.A.493 of 2021, seeking ad-interim injunction, restraining the plaintiff in the suit from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property.
6. Trial court by order dated 29.07.2022, granted ad-interim injunction in I.A.No.493 of 2021. I.A.264 of 2021 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, however, by separate Order. Against the dismissal of Order in I.A.No.264 of 2021, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.04 of 2022 was filed on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. Against granting of injunction in I.A.No.493 of 2021, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 05 of 2022 was filed on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.
7. As stated supra, vide Orders dated 21.10.2022, C.M.A.No.4 of 2022 was allowed and temporary injunction was granted in I.A.No.264 of 2021 in O.S.No. 77 of 2021.
C.M.A.No.5 of 2022 was allowed and the I.A.No.493 of 2021 was dismissed.
8. Aggrieved by the Order in CMA No.04 of 2022, C.R.P.No.2559 of 2022 is filed.
9. Aggrieved by the Order in CMA No.05 of 2022, C.R.P.No.2652 of 2022 is filed.
Page 5 of 22 SRS,J
CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022
10. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, counsel appearing for revision petitioner and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, counsel appearing for respondent.
11. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner came into possession of the property, pursuant to the sale deed, dated 23.07.2021, executed in his favour, by 2nd defendant in suit. His vendor came into possession of the property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 25.04.2016. Thus, the vendor and thereafter, the petitioner have been in possession of the property since 2016. He would further contend that the pattadar adangal/pahani dated 13.09.2021 and the 1-B extract dated 13.09.2021, which stand in the name of the 2nd defendant prima facie proved his vendor's possession over the schedule property and not the plaintiff. He also would contend that the trial Court on considering the material, granted injunction in I.A.No.493 of 2021, however, the Appellate Court on misreading of the documents, allowed the appeal and dismissed I.A.No.493 of 2021. He also would contend that the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.261 of 2021, however, the appellate Court allowed C.M.A.No. 4 of 2022 and allowed I.A.No. 261 of 2021. He would submit that the revision petitioner proved prima facie case for grant of injunction and in fact about three days back, by virtue of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff trespassed into the land and damaged the crop.
Page 6 of 22 SRS,J
CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022
12. The learned counsel for the respondents viz., Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri would contend that the 3rd defendant came to the Court with unclean hands. The 3rd defendant in his affidavit filed in I.A. No.493 of 2021 would contend that he was granted pattadar pass book and title deed pursuant to his purchase of the property, however, no documents were filed. He also would contend that the Mandal Revenue Officer by proceedings dated 06.06.2022, rejected the claim of the 3rd defendant regarding the mutation of his name in revenue records. However, without disclosing the above fact, he filed this application for grant of injunction. Injunction being discretionary, could not be granted to a person who came to the Court with unclean hands. He further contended that the appellate Court on consideration of the material available on record, while dismissing the I.A.No. 493 of 2021 granted injunction in I.A.No.264 of 2021 and he would contend that there are no merits in these revision petitions.
13. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the Court below considered prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss sine qua non for grant of ad-interim/temporary injunction?Page 7 of 22 SRS,J
CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022
14. In Amarican Cyanamid Co Vs Ethicon Ltd.,1 the principles regarding grant of injunction are laid down as under:
1. The plaintiff must first satisfy the court that there is a serious issue to decide and that if that the defendants were not restrained and the plaintiff own the action damages at common law would be inadequate compensation for the plaintiff's loss
2. The court once satisfied of these matters will then consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting injunction or not, that is, whether justice would be best served by an order of injunction.
3. The court does not and cannot just the merits of parties respective cases and that any decision of justice will be taken in a state of uncertainty above the parties rights.
15. In Wander Ltd and another Vs Antox India P Ltd.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
9. Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary.
The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated:
"...is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved 1 1975 (1) ALL England Reporter 504 2 (1990) Suppl SCC 727 Page 8 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the 'balance of convenience' lies."
The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case. The court also, in restraining a defendant from exercising what he considers his legal right but what the plaintiff would like to be prevented, puts into the scales, as a relevant consideration whether the defendant has yet to commence his enterprise or whether he has already been doing so in which latter case considerations somewhat different from those that apply to a case where the defendant is yet to commence his enterprise, are attracted.
13. On a consideration of the matter, we are afraid, the appellate bench fell into error on two important propositions. The first is a misdirection in regard to the very scope and nature of the appeals before it and the limitations on the powers of the appellate court to substitute its own discretion in an appeal preferred against a discretionary order. The second pertains to the infirmities in the ratiocination as to the quality of Antox's alleged user of the trademark on which the passing-off action is founded. We shall deal with these two separately.
14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of Page 9 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [(1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156] : (SCR 721) "... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] '...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case'." The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.
16. In Dalpat Kumar and others Vs Prahlad Singh and others3 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
4. Order 39 Rule 1(c) provides that temporary injunction may be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to 3 (1992) 1 SCC 719 Page 10 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing ... or dispossession of the plaintiff or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Law Commission clause (c) was brought on statute by Section 86(i)(b) of the Amending Act 104 of 1976 with effect from February 1, 1977. Earlier thereto there was no express power except the inherent power under Section 151 CPC to grant ad interim injunction against dispossession. Rule 1 primarily concerned with the preservation of the property in dispute till legal rights are adjudicated. Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do or to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. In other words, the court, on exercise of the power of granting ad interim injunction, is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the court satisfying that (1) there is a serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the court, there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiff/defendant; (2) the court's interference is necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it.
5. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise that there is "a prima facie case" in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima Page 11 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also is that "the balance of convenience" must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus, the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit.
17. In Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd., and others Vs Coca Cola Co4 and others the Apex Court held as follows :
42. In the matter of grant of injunction, the practice in England is that where a contract is negative in nature, or contains an express negative stipulation, breach of it may be restrained by injunction 4 (1995) 5 SCC 545 Page 12 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 and injunction is normally granted as a matter of course, even though the remedy is equitable and thus in principle a discretionary one and a defendant cannot resist an injunction simply on the ground that observance of the contract is burdensome to him and its breach would cause little or no prejudice to the plaintiff and that breach of an express negative stipulation can be restrained even though the plaintiff cannot show that the breach will cause him any loss. [See: Chitty on Contracts, 27th Edn., Vol. I, General Principles, paragraph 27-040 at p. 1310;
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 24, paragraph 992.] In India Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prescribes that notwithstanding anything contained in clause (e) of Section 41, where a contract comprises an affirmative agreement to do a certain act, coupled with a negative agreement, express or implied, not to do a certain act, the circumstance that the court is unable to compel specific performance of the affirmative agreement shall not preclude it from granting an injunction to perform the negative agreement. This is subject to the proviso that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him. The Court is, however, not bound to grant an injunction in every case and an injunction to enforce a negative covenant would be refused if it would indirectly compel the employee either to idleness or to serve the employer. [See: Ehrman v. Bartholomew [(1898) 1 Ch 671 : (1895-99) All ER Rep Ext 1680] ; N.S. Golikari [(1967) 2 SCR 378 :
AIR 1967 SC 1098 : (1967) 1 LLJ 740] at p. 389.]
43. The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the following tests -- (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and
(iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken Page 13 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the "balance of convenience" lies. [See: Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] , (SCC at pp. 731-32.] In order to protect the defendant while granting an interlocutory injunction in his favour the court can require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.
47. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant case GBC had approached the High Court for the injunction order, granted earlier, to be vacated. Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things Page 14 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings.
18. In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd.5, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
24. We, however, think it fit to note herein below certain specific considerations in the matter of grant of interlocutory injunction, the basic being non-expression of opinion as to the merits of the matter by the court, since the issue of grant of injunction, usually, is at the earliest possible stage so far as the time-frame is concerned. The other considerations which ought to weigh with the court hearing the application or petition for the grant of injunctions are as below:
(i) extent of damages being an adequate remedy;
(ii) protect the plaintiff's interest for violation of his rights though, however, having regard to the injury that may be suffered by the defendants by reason therefor;
(iii) the court while dealing with the matter ought not to ignore the factum of strength of one party's case being stronger than the others;
(iv) no fixed rules or notions ought to be had in the matter of grant of injunction but on the facts and circumstances of each case --
the relief being kept flexible;
5 (1999) 7 SCC 1 Page 15 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022
(v) the issue is to be looked at from the point of view as to whether on refusal of the injunction the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury keeping in view the strength of the parties' case;
(vi) balance of convenience or inconvenience ought to be considered as an important requirement even if there is a serious question or prima facie case in support of the grant;
(vii) whether the grant or refusal of injunction will adversely affect the interest of the general public which can or cannot be compensated otherwise.
19. In Best Seller Retail (India) Private Ltd Vs Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.6, the Apex Court observed as follows :
29. Yet, the settled principle of law is that even where prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court will refuse temporary injunction if the injury suffered by plaintiff on account of refusal of temporary injunction was not irreparable.
20. Thus, a conspectus of the above expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the word prima facie case apparently indicates something which at the first impression makes out a triable case. The term prima facie case should not be confused with terms prima facie title, which has to be established at the trial upon permitting the parties to lead evidence. Thus, a question which has been raised at the first instance needs to be investigated and decided on merits.
6 (2012) 6 SCC 792 Page 16 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022
21. Balance of convenience denotes that the court must be satisfied that comparative mischief and hardship which is likely to be caused to the person seeking injunction is more than the inconvenience likely to be caused to the other party by granting such injunction.
22. The word irreparable injury on the other hand guides the court to be satisfied that the refusal to grant injunction would result in such injury which cannot be compensated in terms of costs or otherwise and the person seeking injunction needs to be protected from the consequences needs to be protected from the consequences of apprehended injury.
23. In the case on hand, plaintiff filed suit to direct the defendants to execute registered sale deed and for grant of injunction. Plaintiff asserted possession over the suit schedule property and hence filed I.A. 264 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking injunction restraining the defendants, their men, etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property. During the course of enquiry, Exs.P1 to P15 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked on behalf of the defendants.
Page 17 of 22 SRS,J
CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022
24. In the counter claim, respondent No.3 filed I.A.No.493 of 2021 for grant of ad interim injunction. Exs.P1 to P7 were marked on his behalf and R1 to R15 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit.
25. Though separate orders are passed in I.A.Nos.264 and 493 of 2021, the documents marked by the respective parties, in both I.As, before the Court below are one and the same. Trial Court granted injunction in I.A.No.493 of 2021 and dismissed I.A.No.264 of 2021. The order of trial court is running into 5 pages. Upto first half 4th page, trial court recorded the facts and submissions. From para 5 of the order the trial court recorded findings and the same is extracted here with :
"5. In the circumstances discussed above, prima faice it cannot be presumed that respondent/plaintiff is in possession of petition/suit schedule property as Ex P.1 cannot establish possession.
6. Even so, Ex P.11 is marked by respondent/plaintiff in his favour, it only establishes that there are severe disputes between respondent/plaintiff and petitioner/defendant No.3 counter claimant but it is not a useful document to prove the possession of respondent/plaintiff.
7. The other submission made by learned counsel for both parties will be considered at the time of trial in original suit. The Page 18 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 determination of conflict of evidence or complex questions of fact and law will be discussed at an appropriate stage.
8. As per the material available on record, this court opines that it is prima facie proved that the petitioner/counter claimant is in possession of the petition/suit schedule property and balance of convenience is in favour of petitioner/counter claimant and not granting this temporary injunction will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner/counter claimant which can't be compensated in monetary terms and it is also necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This court opines that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in allowing this petition."
26. In the appeal CMA No 5 of 2022, the Appellate Court observed as follows :
13. On keen perusal of documents of both parties, it is clear that the appellant has proved his prima facie case and balance of convenience and the defendant no.3 failed to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property. If the temporary injunction is granted, serious prejudice would be caused to the appellant, which cannot be compensated by way of money. From the above documents of both parties, the basic principles of prima facie case balance of convenience are not made out by the respondent/petitioner/defendant No.3.
Therefore, the respondent/petitioner/defendant No.3 is not entitled for temporary injunction and hence the order of lower court is set aside and this appellate court has to interfere into the findings given by the lower court in its order...".
27. Neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court properly appreciated or considered the principles qua granting of Page 19 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 injunction. When the documents filed by the respective parties are available, the courts below should consider the same and then record prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. As can be seen from the orders, the only consideration of both courts below is at paras 8 and 13 respectively.
28. Same is the case, while rejecting injunction in I.A.No. 264 of 2021 by the Trial Court and granting injunction by appellate court in CMA No. 4 of 2022.
29. When an appeal is filed appellate court being the final fact finding court should be more careful and cautious. Appellate Court should have kept in mind the principle laid down in Wander's case (referred to supra). Appellate Court, normally cannot substitute its opinion unless the trial court committed manifest illegality.
30. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial review. The duty of this Court is to see that the Courts shall not exceed its Page 20 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 power that is conferred on it or exercise power based on extraneous material to pass any order and to keep the subordinate courts within its bounds of jurisdiction.
31. High Court while exercising power under Article 227 can exercise its discretion to interfere in the following circumstances:
(a) When the inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously in excess of power.
(b) When refused to exercise jurisdiction.
(c) When found an error of law apparent on the face of record.
(d) Violated principles of natural justice.
(e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion.
(f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material.
(g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure.
(h) Order resulting in manifest injustice and
(i) Error both on facts and law or even otherwise.
32. Since the documents marked in the I.As, were not placed before this Court, though counsel for petitioner and respondents argued extensively, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration.
33. In view of the discussion supra, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Orders passed in I.A.No. 264 of 2021 and I.A.No. 493 of 2021 in O.S.No. 77 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Page 21 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 Lakkireddipalli as well as orders in C.M.A.No. 4 of 2022 and C.M.A.No. 5 of 2022 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Kadapa cum VI Additional District Judge, Kapada FAC of V Addl District Judge, Rayachoty are hereby set aside. I.A.No. 264 of 2021 and I.A.No. 493 of 2021 in O.S.No. 77 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli are restored.
34. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddipalli, shall dispose of I.A.Nos.264 of 2021 and 493 of 2021 in O.S.No. 77 of 2021, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the expressions of Hon'ble Apex Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
35. It is however, made clear that observations, if any, made by this Court, during the course of this order, will not come in the way of the Trial court in disposing of the applications in accordance with law.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE SUBBAREDDY SATTI.
Date: 19.01.2023 Mnr/ikn Page 22 of 22 SRS,J CRP Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI C.R.P.Nos.2559 and 2652 of 2022 Date: 19.01.2023 Mnr/ikn