IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1459 of 2008 DINESHWAR SINGH & ORS Versus PHUL SUNDARI DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 4.9.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order affirming an order of the Court below refusing injunction is not vitiated by any jurisdictional error and is fit to be affirmed by this Court in the light of the binding precedent of the Apex Court in the case of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar & Anr. Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway reported in AIR 1973 SC 76 and the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria reported in AIR 1976 SC 2621. Counsel for the petitioners however has attempted to distinguish that judgment by placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh & Ors. Vrs. Prithivi Raj Prasad reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 303. In the opinion of this Court, the said judgment does not lay down the ratio expanding the scope of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. From paragraph no.4 of the said judgment it would appear that this court had only taken the facts of the particular case into consideration for holding that “that being the position, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is not applicable on the facts of the case.” (Underlining by me for emphasis.) 2 In this background, when the facts of the present case is examined, it would find that the Appellate Court in paragraph no.5 has recorded the following findings:- “5. I find that the suit is only for partition of the suit property whereas the dispute is about the relationship as well and rights over that and it cannot be found from the recital in Misc. appeal in para 9 whereas it has been mentioned that claim of daughtership of Sanjharo was not without foundation or at least the court sought to have held that there was a serious dispute to go for determination in the suit with regard to daughtership of Sanjharo. I am of the opinion that the scope of the suit does not encompass the adjudication of daughtership of Sanjharo that is why the prima-facie case of appellants is yet to be established and therefore, I find no reason to interfere in the order of learned Sub. Judge 8th, Ara dated 12.10.02 and therefore, it is hereby, ordered that this Misc. appeal is dismissed on contest without cost.” Such a clear approach of the Appellate Court while affirming the order of the Trial Court in an injunction matter would clearly go to show that there was no jurisdictional error committed by either of them and/or both of them. Accordingly, this civil revision application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)