Lumbini Nagar Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7896 of 1995
Petitioner: Lumbini Nagar Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and others
Respondent: Union of India and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7896 of 1995
Judges: K RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 17, 1995
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Injunction – High Court refused to grant injunction – Injunction is a discretionary order – Since the High Court refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the nine persons, it would not be expedient under Article 136 to upset that.
INJUNCTION
Injunction – Injunction is a discretionary order – Since the High Court refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the nine persons, it would not be expedient under Article 136 to upset that.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1.. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on July 28, 1995 and the order dated August 11, 1995, affidavit has been filed in which it has categorically been stated that out of 169 original allottees, 57 are employees of respondent No. 2 and are described as departmental employees. Out of 112 other allottees, 9 allottees were given notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Remaining 103 persons are the original allottees who are still in occupation of their respective tenements with their families. They neither sold nor transferred their tenements and they are continuing to reside in the respective tenements even till date.
2. Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated across the bar that no action is being taken against any person other than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to remain in possession of their respective tenements. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that these 9 allottees, though have entered into agreements to sell their properties, the same is subject matter of the pending suit in the High Court. Therefore, their possession cannot be disturbed.
3. Since the High Court, both the Learned Judge as well as the Division Bench, was not inclined to grant injunction as sought for, we are not persuaded to take a different view in that behalf. Injunction being a discretionary order, the High Court has refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the nine persons. Under these circumstances, we do not deem it expedient under Article 136 to upset the order of the High Court.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
1.. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on July 28, 1995 and the order dated August 11, 1995, affidavit has been filed in which it has categorically been stated that out of 169 original allottees, 57 are employees of respondent No. 2 and are described as departmental employees. Out of 112 other allottees, 9 allottees were given notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Remaining 103 persons are the original allottees who are still in occupation of their respective tenements with their families. They neither sold nor transferred their tenements and they are continuing to reside in the respective tenements even till date.
2. Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated across the bar that no action is being taken against any person other than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to remain in possession of their respective tenements. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that these 9 allottees, though have entered into agreements to sell their properties, the same is subject matter of the pending suit in the High Court. Therefore, their possession cannot be disturbed.
3. Since the High Court, both the Learned Judge as well as the Division Bench, was not inclined to grant injunction as sought for, we are not persuaded to take a different view in that behalf. Injunction being a discretionary order, the High Court has refused to exercise the discretion in favour of the nine persons. Under these circumstances, we do not deem it expedient under Article 136 to upset the order of the High Court.
4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
