KISHORE KUMAR KHAITAN AND ANR. versus PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 176 · Decided: 13-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KISHORE KUMAR KHA!TAN AND ANR. 
v. 
PRA VEEN KUMAR SINGH 
FEBRUARY 13, 2006 
(S. B. SINHA AND P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Cude 1908-0. 39, I and 2 and 0. 43, R. /-Ex-parte 
ad-interim order to maintain status quo--Plaintiff filing suit for declaration 
C of his status as a tenant on the basis of a letter written on the letter head of 
a Limited C umpany and signed by defendant- Also seeking gram of interim 
injunction pending the suit restraining defendants from interfering with his 
possession of suit property-Trial Court refusing tu pass such order -District 
Court, on appeal, passing an ex-parte ad interim order directing the parties 
to maintain status quo without indicating what the status quo was-Held, the 
D order was not proper in an original suit--The swd order should not have been 
passed at the initial stage of a litigation. 
Civil Procedure Code 1908--Ss. 115, 151 and 0. 39, R. I and 2 and 
0.43, R. I-Interim Mandatory lnjunction---Grant of Remedy--Transfer of 
Property Act 1882--S. 107--District Court issuing an ad-interim order to 
E maintain status quo--Plaintiff's plea that he was dispossessed of the suit 
premises subsequent to said order-District Court passing interim mandatory 
injunction directing the defendant to restore possession of the suit property to 
plaintiff-No specific and adequate prima facie finding that plaintiff was in 
possession on the date of filling of suit and passing of status quo order and 
F that he had been subsequently dispossessed in violation of the status quo 
order-Genuineness and validity of the document witnessing lease not 
examined-Held, order passed without proper or adequate finding on these 
aspect would be without jurisdiction-Mandatory injunction being an 
extraordinary relief, such an order not supported by necessary findings 
justifaing its grant can not be sustained. 
G 
H 
Constitution of India-Article 227-Jurisdiction of High Court-Held, it 
is to be invoked to correct errors of jurisdiction-where a court comes to a 
finding of fact by asking itself a wrong question or approaches the question 
in an improper manner, the said finding of fact can not be said to be one 
176 
l 
+ 
l.r-. 
KISHORE KUMAR KHA IT AN r. PRAVEEN KUMAR SINGH 
177 
•. ...,f 
rendered with jurisdiction and is amenable to correction at the hands of the A 
court ula 227-Failure to render the necessary findings to support its order 
by the court is also a jurisdictional error liable to correction-High Court 
failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not setting aside the interim mandatory 
injunction which was not supported by necessary findings. 
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his status as B 
a tenant of suit property and for perpetual injunction restraining the 
appellant-defendant, the owners of the building, from interfering with his 
peaceful possession. Plaintiff also moved an application for grant of interim 
injunction pending the suit, restraining defendant from interfering with 
his possession of the property. It was claimed by the plaintiff that suit c 
property was leased to him by defendant and transaction was evidenced 
by writing on the letter head of a company owned by defendant. Lease 
was denied by defendant. Trial court found that there was no urgency 
which justified the grant of an ad-interim ex parte order of injunction. On 
appeal, Additional District Judge passed an ex parte ad-interim order 
directing tt1e parties to maintain status quo as on 19.06.1998. Thereafter, D 
plaintiff filed an application u/s 151 of the Code for an interim mandatory 
.,\. 
injunction alleging that he was in possession on 19.06.1998 when order to 
+ 
maintain status quo was passed and that he was dispossessed on the next 
day in violation of that order. District Court passed as order of interim 
mandatory injunction directing to restore possessio·n of suit property to E 
plaintiff. This was challenged by the defendants before the High Court in 
a proceeding u/s 115 of the code. The High Court set aside the order and 
remanded the matter for consideration by the District Court. The High 
Court pointed out that the essential condition for passing an interim 
mandatory injunction was that the party claiming it must be shown to be 
in possession on the date of the order directing the "parties to maintain F 
.. 
status quo and that he was dispossessed after such an order was passed. 
\ 
_...I 
Since, specific findings on both these aspects were l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.