^' E\ THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT: BBLASPUR APPELLANT / M.A. No. N'5'4-*'of^04 Surya Deo Uraon, aged 46 years, sdn of late •Shri Ganesh Uraon, resident pf village Saraidih, district Gadhwa (Jharkharid) (Defendant no. 1) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (^-'Cl) Mukh Deo Tiwari, aged 44 years, son of f 1\ /lats Shri Ramdhari Tiwari, Caste Brahmin, ^ resident of Jamwantpur, tehsil Pal, district Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) (Plamtiff) ^c •'/- .••' f^ /<g^<^ .^y ^ <S, (f) Sub Divisional Ofllcer (Revenue), "''(^.amanujganj, district Sarguja (C.G.) (3) Additiohal Collector,Sarguja, Ambikapur (4) State of Chhattisgarh, through the ''Collector, Sarguja,Ambikapur (C.l©l) (Defendants, exlparte) APPEAL UHBER SECTION 104(e) REAW WITH ORDER 3T RULE Ifrl OF THE C'ODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 '^uepysjsn sq^ ^iBte uoi^n^! Aie^cSuiat e Sup^ssi Aq p8i98)oM sq Q^ spasu' qaiti^ uojsssssoet ut s! sq ^^p^s SH •^84 uo pnojo si sjs^ pue ssi}p0tjyie snuaASJ stft Aq psuoij®Aliie6a||! ys?q sey qo!M»psiisiaid SB»spo^ 814}jo (9) (y.i. uog38Syi8pun*uo!|B3i|d.de jsypue 'ishaiw^, •UAft&ipMW SBW MOiijM sjU8pu8}8p gtfi Xq pausiaid os|8 ^ew isns !IAIO B pue 9661 -les^ 8ift ut-inoAiBi Sifflusejd ui pspiosp sehv pue psiBffiui SBAft (SpOQ 8(ft ^JOyS Jt^) 696i, 'apOQ 8RU3ASy pUB-1 IJJBSsmBMUO 10 (g) fft\, UOB08S J8pUH sSuipssaOtid •spjoosj snusAaj sy^ ui pspiooai Aisnfiriuiyjeo S8Mj84Najoi-i!aittJo^uuBy8lil PUB w- 6l jea< aifl H! sures 81R p&isnbOB GuiABtj puB; }ins syi 16 uoisssssod u! jsurto sq o^ lUieiQ s^uiejd aqi I.BM^ aje tioi|SU! aseo ay} ^o stosBj fe) ^,,^t^t^ 'O'd'O.toZ^t 8|"y -iSpiQ JSpun uoiiBOiidne siliieijSddeflUBpuaijap 8iR p8iasi8j^os|e sBt|;pue •Q-cj-o jQ Z t t einy ge^^Ol^u !pgi!id<^^!^tii3piS^ilKs8^^hc^^Byi8qi ^303 •;a8gfii.5aiiin'@^»igKit%gB^iH.L:3QpR. ^nsiCf3 7 01Z •ON S}U8puodsaj/apis sift-i^ J8AMST jsued 'jeMBjSv AssfuBS UMS • t'ON )u8puodss.ietBjiy39sunoo'gAB}seAHijg •Q 'v pijS •luejisdde aiR joj^sunoo 'BUUSA MVBUUIOS yyg iJSljlO pUBUBMliOSQlCTnM snsySA uoB.inosoeAins. SS/Wti'ON'VW siNgaNOdsgy INV-mdd" eiijim^^uin)|i|umjsei3s^ nruysaMiUOHs"au8gaiOuis ^ndSOTIBlVHyyS^ll.VHHOdOjLijnOOHOlH s... M -s.- (3) The appeliant/defenclaott white denying the ptaint dlegation and the avemients made in the apptication for temporary injunction, moved an indeper^ent apptteation under Order 39 RuSe 1 & 2of G.P.C. ctaiming relief ^ainst tt»^aintiffthat the plsurrtiff be r^trained from interfering in the defendant*s possession. Aocording to ths defendant he is in possession of the suit land and the wder passed by the revenue authonties in his favour have been passai after hols enquiry and fte is the Sawfui tttfe hsMcler of the iand. (4) Leamed trial Court has eonsidered the res^ctive csses of the parties on the touch stone of thiw piNre ^ grant of fempu^^ injunetion nameiy pr^ fep case, balance of^^^^ irreparable iossana after^refernngl^lac^of particulariyfte Fevenue re(»refe frow 19^ onwards havei findingthsfttnepsaintiffhasapfffnafecfficaseinhisfavourai^ifheis from the suit ianci he shaii suffer irreparabte toss. ^' • '.•••••' (5) Leamed counsei for the appeilant has argued that the finding recorded by the triat Court are not bome Qtrt ftwn the pleadings of fhe partiesantlthesttheofderdeservestQbeinterteTed. (6) Gounsel for ^e respondente has strongty urged thal, ttie t^^ Court has exercised its discrttiwi after cbnsidering the facEs of ttie and findings have been recorded on true appreciation of ttw documents avaitabSe on the recorcS^fttle triat Gwrt. He would sutenit that no interterence inthe wder pss^a byfti&trial Court is balted fsr. Havi(^ perused the order passed by the tnal^ourfr it would^ appear thstffie triai Court has carefuily ancS elaborateiy^consjdered the _«aas ^'J.. IS^-SK.I;; ";••:,•-•-_:'¥SKSi^ ,1K<UBs| -s- finding stoout the existence of convenienee and irreparatile ioss in fec» case, ofthe batance of No.1. The trtal Court has referred to the revenye reeord from 1948 tsll the date of fitihg of e suitteholdlhatthepisuHtiffssinposs^sionof thesuitlarel. ' . ." • " ;: : . ' • (8) In the matter of WantfW Ltd. antfAnoffiw vs. Antox frwffa P. i.tu. reported in 1390 f^^piy SCG 727 theHon'bie Supreme Gourt has heM thus in paragraph 14 of s report. "14. The appeals before the DNision Bench were against tse exeipi^^ di^efien i^;ti^ ^ingte Jycige. {n suchappeats.tReappNI^GOUi^^^Mei^B^ exero^ of ctte^etioffi of the court of fir^ in^ isubsW^ fte i^ Sisc^Qn ^ th^ diSCT^Uon has Nen ^Q^ t have beett e)®rois^arbitr^^ Gapriciousty OF peryetsety or wherethe court hag igqored the s^ed principies of iaw r^ulating grantSf fefy^ii 6f interlocutory injuncttens, An appeal apainst exeroise of discretion te said to be an gppeat on pnnc^le. Appeilate cgurt wiil not rea^sessthe mgtenal and se^tto reacK a conciusion uifferent frcm the one reached by the eourt below if the one rea^sec! by that ttourt was reasonably possibfe on the mgrteriat. The appeltate court woyld normaity not tieju^ified in interfering witti the exeroi^ of discretion under appeai sotelv on the grqyml that if it had c<msKiprw the m^er M%e®3tstageitw(Mtd^av&cQme to a contrsuy conclyaoR. If e cliseretion has beai exerolsed by the trial coutt reaspn^iy arri^^^ mannerWefaotthsitthesppeltateicQyrtwoi.ildha^etatteRgi^ different view may not Jtss^ intefference v^ ttw^ W court^ exereise of discre^m. ia^r referringyto thes| Ipnrffitpies GajendragadkN, ^. ) fW»Ns^^ tLttV.fi!o»>ar?Josepfrf{a8^93SGR71^<SGR^21)l 'iS&:^: I- .i: i :! 1 I.li 1. i i II ; :!| u ;B- 1- l' I: I: :i 1;-:;1 i: .''•:! I! :: .-* ':.; • '''••i ;:l^:>MiSSfc. 1 w,y—vj •^. '"t.rf^-s? ^^— • . ',...' "•"•"..'. ",.. These principies are wetl ^tabtished, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charfes Osenton & Co v. Jnanatoff 1942 AG 130'.. .the law as to ttie reversal by a court of appeal 6fw< order made by a judge betiwjn the exeroise of his djscretion is weit esteblished, and any difdculty that arises is.ckie only to the applteation of w^i setttedprinciplesinaninyividuatcase." The appetiate judgment cioes not seem to defer to thss principte." -- (9) Appiying ttie principtes in ttie facts anci ciroum^iGes of the present case, it would app$arthat th!g,t(iat Qourt has exerois^l its liscs^onary jurisclictioR affler cor^i^ revenue entri^ and oteeFawumen^ arid fact&available on^reGQFd. The findings are neitt^ arbitrary^eFveree nor it can be saii th^ no "s!^^:. '::^ ^^^ pereon of ordinary prudence woutd reach to sych findings. Since an appeai against exeroise of discretion is an appeai w principles, as heid bytheSupremeCourtinttfe matterofS^ncterl.MancfAnoffiCT' (supra), this Gourt has iimit^ jurisdiction. Since the findings reeorded by the triaf Court do not appearto taeperverse, there is no sytetance inthis appeai which faite and is hereby dismis^d, (10) Thesuit is pending smce 2CT33, therefore it is direded thatthe triaS Court shait du well to dispw®bf the suit at an eariy dete;|uwi / ' '• '.'. •^•: ' . . - . •"• . •' :'• :'- : ':; :.... '..'•. : ': .'•:• •:' •.:- •• . :•'•".•. • .' •-•" ",:, preferabty within aperiod ofsixmonthsftom thedateofpresentatiQn of certtfied c-Qpy of this order. p,ashant'K^»rMissu"a