........
...
_.
'·
CHANDRASHEKHAR GATANAN BHOGAONKAR
v.
YESHWANT DHONDI POTDAR AND ORS .
AUGUST 28, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Co11stitution of India, 1950: Article 136.
Appeal-Possession of land-Grant of intelim inju11ctiort-Findings of
Courts below-l11terfere11ce with by Supreme Cowt-Held 11ot called for.
On the question whether the appellant was in possession of the
disputed land and whether ad interim injunction should be granted, the
Trial Court gave its findings in favour of the appellant but the first
appellate court held that he was not in possession of the land. The High
Court declined to interfere.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD : At this stage, it is not desirable to go into the merits of the
case and the findings of the courts below, which would have adverse effect
on the respective interests of the parties. (118-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8032 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.95 of the Bombay High
A
B
c
D
E
Court in W.P. No. 3965 of 1994.
F
AS. Bhasme for the Appellant.
S.B. Upadhyaya for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G
Leave granted.
Notice was issued with a view to impress upon the parties to settle
the dispute amicably and learned counsel for the respondents in fairness
submitted that he is not informed about the settlement and, therefore, he H
117
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
is unable to impress upon them to enter into any compromise.
Mr. A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant, contended on
merits that the trial Court was wrong in its conclusion that the appellant is
not in possession of the land. We do not want to go into the controversy
as to who is in possession of the land. It is true that the trial court on p1i.• na
B f acie evidence found that the appellant was in possession o1 the land. It
was further found that irreparable injury would be caused to him if ad
interim injunction is granted. On appeal, the District Judge re-appreciated
the evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant is not in
possession of the land. High Court did not interfere on being approached
C under Article 227.
D
At this stage, it is not desirable to go into the merits of the case and
the findings of the courts below, which would have adverse effect on the
respective interests of the parties. The issue was of prim a f acie case and of
balance of convenience to grant or to refuse ad interim injunction.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A.
Appeal dismissed.
. ·.
.....
. '
Lex