Summary
The High Court improperly reversed concurrent refusals of interim mandatory relief in a summary possession suit. Section 115 CPC restricted revision of interlocutory orders and permitted correction of jurisdictional errors, not appellate reconsideration of facts. Interim mandatory injunction also required a case stronger than the usual prima facie showing. The lower courts’ orders were restored and prompt disposal of the suit directed.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could reverse concurrent refusals of interim mandatory injunction in revision.
Provisions considered
- Section 115(1) and proviso, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The proviso restricted interference with orders during proceedings to the specified final-disposal condition, and revisional power addressed jurisdictional errors rather than ordinary factual or legal errors. (¶ 6–7)
Held
- The High Court allowed revision against interlocutory relief contrary to the amended Section 115 proviso. Independently, revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised as an appeal merely to reach a different factual conclusion absent jurisdictional error. (¶ 5–7)
- Interim mandatory injunction required a strong case beyond an ordinary prima facie showing, necessity to prevent irreparable or serious injury and a favourable balance of convenience. The High Court failed to address those requirements or the first appellate court’s reasons. (¶¶ 4–5, 8)
- The proper course was to restore the concurrent orders refusing interim relief, leaving the summary Section 6 suit for adjudication. (¶ 9–10)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and lower courts’ orders restored. Trial court directed to endeavour to dispose of the Section 6 suit within six months.