Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)
Bhanu vs Vijay Garg on 9 September, 2025 cites

Jai Singh & Ors vs M.C.D. & Anr on 23 September, 2010

Generally, it can not substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice. [Jai Singh and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (2010) 9 SCC 385)] On perusal of impugned order passed by first appellate Court and documents available on record, it was found that defendant no.3- petitioner herein has failed to produce any photograph or document regarding his right or title in relation to operation of garage on the disputed land bearing survey No.1616. Apart from this, from the documents produced by the State Government, it was not clearly found that the land in dispute is a Government land. Therefore, in order to maintain balance of convenience, a temporary injunction has been granted only as there was no possibility of any inconvenience or difficulty to either petitioner- defendant No.3 or other defendants. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the first appellate Court reversing the order passed by the Trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108 7 MP-3930-2025 Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 711 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010

On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 12-Sep-25 10:36:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21108 4 MP-3930-2025 opposed contentions of the petitioner and by supporting the impugned order passed by the first appellate Court, it is submitted that father of plaintiff Shri Krishna Das had purchased lands through a registered sale deed. Although defendant No.3 has alleged that his garage is being operated continuously on survey no. 1616 of the said land since 2006, but he has not produced any photograph or document regarding his right or title on the said land in relation to operation of garage. Apart from this, from the documents produced by State Government, it was not found that the land in dispute is a Government land. If a temporary injunction is issued in favour of plaintiff, then there is no possibility of any inconvenience or difficulty to defendants including present petitioner. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another (2010) 9 SCC 385 and the decision in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, it is contended that the High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate Court and re-appreciate the evidence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 2466 - Full Document
1