The Supreme Court of India, in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26645 of 2015] Titled as The State of Jharkhand Versus Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors. has held that
The Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging the
orders passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant
interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC could very well be maintainable.
According to the Writ Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1
to 3 herein, their mother – late Smt. Shyal Devi had
purchased about 3.61 acres of land1 (“suit property”)
from Raju Gour and Shatrughan Gour by way of two
unregistered Sale Deeds dated 30.04.1958. According
to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, late Smt. Shyal Devi had
raised a structure over a part of the suit property,
and was cultivating the rest of it. The said land was
situated adjacent to the land belonging to the Bihar
State Road Transport Corporation.
Smt. Shyal Devi filed Title Suit No.
153/1992 before the Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur
alleging that the officials of the Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation were disturbing her possession
of the suit property since 1990.
The Additional Munsif vide Judgment and
Decree dated 18/27.02.1999 decreed the Suit in
favour of the Plaintiff – late Smt. Shyal Devi, and
confirmed her possession since 1958. The Bihar
State Road Transport Corporation was restrained
from interfering with the peaceful possession of Smt. Shyal Devi.
The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation filed
Title Appeal No. 20/1999 to challenge the Judgment
and Decree dated 18/27.02.1999 before the
Additional District Judge, East Singhbhum,
The Title Appeal No. 20/1999 was dismissed
by the Additional District Judge on the ground of
possession. However, the District Judge held that
the Plaintiff had failed to establish her title, and it
would be open for the Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation to file a suit against late Smt. Shyal Devi
for declaration of title over the land, and to seek her
The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) vide Order dated
07.04.2015 dismissed the Application for Temporary
Injunction filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It was
held that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to describe
the specific area/portion of the suit property which
was in their alleged possession, over which the
construction of the Electricity Sub-station was being
carried out by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.
The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I)
concluded that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to
make out a prima facie case, and held that no
irreparable loss would be caused, which could not be
compensated in terms of money.
. Aggrieved by the judgment of the District Judge,
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed W.P. (C) No. 2081 of
2015 before the Jharkhand High Court seeking a writ
of certiorari to quash the Order dated 07.04.2015
passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) in Title
Suit No. 45/2015, and Order dated 21.04.2015
passed by the District Court in Misc. Appeal No.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide the
impugned Judgment dated 19.05.2015 allowed W.P.
(C) No. 2081 of 2015 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3,
and directed the parties to maintain status quo with
respect to the suit property
One of the main contention was that the Writ Petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against the Judicial Order.