SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 465 of 2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Petitioners are defendants in Original Suit No. 248 of 2022 pending before the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun. The said suit was filed by Anant Ram (respondent no. 1 herein) for permanent injunction against the petitioners and one Madan Lal (respondent no. 2 herein). Along with the suit, respondent no. 1 also filed a temporary injunction application. Learned trial court allowed the temporary injunction application vide order dated 06.07.2022 and defendants to the suit were restrained from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession over the suit land. Petitioners challenged the said order, passed by learned trial court in a miscellaneous appeal, which has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Dehradun vide judgement dated 07.10.2022. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court. 4. Law is well settled that grant of temporary injunction is discretionary. Both the courts below have exercised their discretion after considering all relevant aspects, including prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that dispute is regarding identification of the land, namely, as to whether the construction being raised by petitioners over Plot Nos. 408 & 409, which was purchased by them through a registered sale deed or the construction raised by them is over Plot No. 410, which allegedly belongs to plaintiff (respondent no. 1 herein). He further submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the construction has been raised over the Plot Nos. 408 & 409 and no part of the construction is over Plot No. 410. 6. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, however, disputes the said submission and he submits that petitioners have encroached over Plot No. 410 while raising construction, therefore, learned courts below have rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo qua land in question. 7. Grant of temporary injunction is discretionary and the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of court of first instance except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. This aspect has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Ekta Appartments CHS Limited v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai reported in (2012) 4 SCC 689. Para 19 & 20 of the said judgment are reproduced below:— “19. We have considered the respective submissions and carefully scrutinized the record. The scope of the appellate Court's power to interfere with an interim order passed by the Court of first instance has been considered by this Court in several cases. In Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. 1990 Supp SCC 727, the Court was called upon to consider the correctness of an order of injunction passed by the Division Bench of the High Court which had reversed the order of the learned Single Judge declining the respondent's prayer for interim relief. This Court set aside the order of the Division Bench and made the following observations: “In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion.” 20. In Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, (2010) 2 SCC 142, the 3-Judge Bench considered a somewhat similar question in the context of the refusal of the trial Court and the High Court to pass an order of temporary injunction, referred to the judgments in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. (supra), N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714 and observed: “The ratio of the abovenoted judgments is that once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity.” 8. Since grant of injunction is discretionary and both the courts below have exercised their discretion after considering the relevant aspects, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 9. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, learned trial court is requested to make endeavour to decide the suit at an early date, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 12.02.2025 Aswal