The High Court has reaffirmed that the maintainability of a civil suit for injunction—especially where questions of possession are intertwined with facts—should be determined during trial and not at the preliminary stage under Article 227. This judgment upholds existing precedent, reinforcing the limited and sparing use of the High Court’s supervisory powers, and is binding on subordinate courts in Uttarakhand, offering persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/2993/2025 of PRAMOD SINGH NEGI Vs PRITHVIPAL SINGH CHAUHAN |
| CNR | UKHC010168472025 |
| Date of Registration | 27-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the maintainability of a suit for injunction and questions regarding possession are mixed questions of fact and law, which should be adjudicated during trial and not at the threshold. The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised only in cases of jurisdictional error or flagrant disregard of the law; no such error was found. Concurrent findings of subordinate courts on preliminary issues are generally not to be interfered with by the High Court unless perversity or lack of jurisdiction is evident. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner purchased land in 2019, with mutation subsequently completed in his favour. Respondent’s appeals/revisions against mutation orders failed at all levels, culminating in a civil suit for injunction by respondent. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) decided the issue in favour of respondent, and the District Judge dismissed the petitioner’s revision. The High Court was approached under Article 227 to challenge these orders. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court |
| Follows | The existing settled law on Article 227 jurisdiction and maintainability of suits—no specific case cited, but doctrine is affirmed |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that High Court supervision under Article 227 is limited to cases of jurisdictional error or clear legal perversity.
- Maintainability of a suit for injunction, especially where possession is in dispute, is a mixed question of law and fact for the trial court to adjudicate.
- Lawyers should not expect threshold quashing of civil suits via writ petitions under Article 227 unless clear lack of jurisdiction or manifest perversity is shown in subordinate courts’ actions.
- Concurrent findings on preliminary issues by lower courts are unlikely to be disturbed by the High Court unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the maintainability of a suit for injunction and the question of possession are mixed questions of law and fact.
- Such questions should be adjudicated during the trial process, not at the threshold via a writ petition.
- The Court found that both the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the revisional court had addressed the issue with concurrent findings, and these did not exhibit any illegality, perversity, or lack of jurisdiction.
- The High Court clarified that, as per well-settled law, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should be exercised very sparingly and only in instances where subordinate courts act without jurisdiction or in blatant disregard for legal principles.
- Since no such exceptional circumstance was demonstrated, the petition was dismissed at the threshold.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Contended that suit for injunction is not maintainable without seeking specific relief of possession.
- Argued that respondent not being in possession renders the injunction suit untenable.
Factual Background
The petitioner purchased a small parcel of land in Pauri in 2019, with mutation subsequently completed in his favour. The respondent challenged the mutation through an appeal and revision before revenue authorities, both of which were dismissed. The respondent then filed a writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the respondent instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction, where the issue of maintainability was decided in their favour. The petitioner’s revision was dismissed, prompting the present writ petition under Article 227.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment reiterates the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing its role as a supervisory remedy to be used sparingly and only when subordinate courts act wholly without jurisdiction or in flagrant disregard of law.
- No analysis of specific statutory sections or reading down/up is present in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms long-settled principles regarding the limited scope of Article 227 and the handling of mixed questions of law and fact by trial courts.