Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) Whether parties can be put on the position of status quo ante on the date of suit pending litigation in the facts and circumstances of the given case?

For deeper and better understanding of the case on hand, I would like to deal with the aforesaid two questions separately by peeling away the varnish and uncovering the truth hidden with reference to the salient points of law.

12. It is. settled principle of law that discretion conferred under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2. C.P.C. in granting or refusing temporary injunction is discretionary and like other cases of discretion is vested in Courts which is to be exercised in accordance with reasons and sound judicial principles. The sound judicial principles which govern the exercise of discretion conferred under Order XXXIX. Rules 1 and 2. C.P.C. upon trial courts are to the effect that a person who seeks a temporary injunction must satisfy the Court, firstly that there is a serious question to be tried in suit to dispel cloud of doubt relating to his entitlement and there is probability of plaintiff being entitled to the relief sought by him. Secondly, the Courts' interference is necessary to protect him from threatened species of injuries enumerated under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., which the Court considers irreparable before his legal right, can be established on trial. Lastly, the comparative inconvenience which is likely to ensue from withholding temporary injunction would be greater than that which is likely to arise from granting it. Prima facie case is not to be confused with title of the plaintiff which is to be established on evidence but it would be sufficient if substantial question at first sight needs investigation and decision whereas irreparable injury does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of compensating the injuries but it means only that injuries cannot be compensated in terms of money. In ascertaining the balance of convenience, the Courts are to weigh and compare the substantial mischief that is likely to be done to the plaintiff, if injunction is refused. It is held that while Courts are considering balance of convenience, the Courts are also required to keep in mind the public convenience as well. It is well to remember that aforesaid three ingredients are to be proved on affidavits as envisaged under Order XXXTX Rule 1. C.P.C. The power given to Courts to act on affidavits is unfettered and it is not subject to the provisions of Order XIX Rules 1 and 2. C.P.C.

14. Coming to second limb of question No. 1 as to under what circumstances, an appellate court can interfere with the order granting or refusing temporary injunction, it is held that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to substitute its discretion in place of trial court unless the order passed by trial court is found unconscionable, perverse or opposed to sound principles of law and practice.

15. An Identical question came up for consideration before Privy Council in the case of Rehmatunnissa Begum and Ors. v. Price and Ors. AIR 1917 PC 116, wherein it is ruled that it is opposed to sound practice for an appellate court to substitute its discretion for that of the Court from which an appeal has been preferred. It is to be noticed that in case of Rehmatunnissa Begum (supra) where the lower appellate court had substituted its discretion for that of the trial court, the Privy Council found that the discretion exercised by the trial court was more sound, hence the discretion of the trial court was restored.

25. In Durg Transport Company u. R. T. A.. Raipur, AIR 1965 MP 142, the Division Bench observed that an injunction is granted to restore the status quo but it is never granted to establish a new state of things differing from the state which existed on the date when proceedings were initiated.

26. Let us apply the aforesaid proposition of law discussed herein above under question Nos. 1 and 2 in preceding paragraphs of this order to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. A close scrutiny of the order dated 18.2.1999, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, reveals that learned trial court after recording positive findings on the question of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss granted temporary injunction to the petitioners whereas the learned appellate court with close mind without addressing itself to any of the ingredients for granting or refusing temporary injunction, interfered with the order impugned setting aside the order passed by learned trial court and allowed the appeal. The learned appellate court has not reversed the finding about prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss recorded by the learned trial court which shall be deemed to be confirmed by necessary implication. I am of the view that unless findings about prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss reached by the learned trial court in the present case are held by the learned appellate court to be against principles of law or perverse, he had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the learned trial court granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners.