1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the appellate order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by which the temporary injunction is granted to the plaintiff/respondent herein to the extent of restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff without following due process of law by upsetting the order of the trial Court.
2. Pleadings in nutshell giving rise to the present petition are that suit was filed in respect of an agricultural piece of land alleging that peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiff of the same is being disturbed by the defendant and thus a decree of permanent injunction was sought.
3. The prayer for temporary injunction was considered and rejected primarily on the basis that the agreement to sell dated 20.02.2003 categorically stipulates handing over of possession of the suit property to Sabir Khan and the defendant having failed to produce any document to the contrary.
4. The appellate Court found the trial Courts order to be erroneous and granted temporary injunction to the extent that during pendency of trial, the plaintiff shall not be dispossessed of the suit property without following the due process of law. Appellate Court found that the agreement to sell executed on 20.02.2003 was insufficiently stamped. Only Rs.100/- was paid as stamp duty whereas by the amendment carried out in the Stamp Act dated 13.08.2002, 08-10% stamp duty was possible while executing to sell in respect of property where possession was handed over. Thus, the appellate Court found that the agreement to sell was inadmissible in law and therefore disbelieving the stipulation contained therein to the extent of handing over of possession to the plaintiff by the defendant. Appellate Court further submits that the revenue records reflected the name of the plaintiff as the one in possession of the suit property. Thus, finding the case prima-facie in favour of the plaintiff, the balance of convenience and the concept of irreparable loss was also found in favour of the plaintiff, the appellate Court directed restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff without following due process of law.
5. In the given facts and circumstances and the findings recorded by the appellate Court, it appears that the same are based on cogent reasons and the appellate Court has not traveled beyond its jurisdictional limits set by law by granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
6. In view of the above, no case for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction is made out.
7. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine sans cost.
Comments