Petition Under Article 227 Maintainable Against Judicial Order

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,

Jamshedpur.

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

eviction.

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.

5/2015.

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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *