NDLI: The State of Jharkhand Vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	O.XXXIX Suit for permanent injunction rr.1 and 2 CPC
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.XXXIX, rr.1 and 2 – Suit seeking permanent injunction along with the application under O.XXXIX rr.1 and 2 for temporary injunction to restrain Electricity Board from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of suit property – Trial court dismissed the application under O.XXXIX rr.1 and 2 holding that plaintiff-respondents 1 to 3 failed to describe the specific area of suit property which was in their alleged possession over which the construction of electricity sub-station was being carried out by the Electricity Board – First appellate court dismissed the appeal – High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit land – It held that the findings of the courts below with respect to there being no prima facie case in favour of respondents 1 to 3 was erroneous in view of finding in their favour in the previous round of litigation – On balance of convenience, the High Court directed that in case appellant completes the construction of the Electricity sub-station, respondent nos.1 to 3 would be under a compulsion to accept compensation even if the title suit was decreed in their favour – In these appeals, by interim orders the appellant-Board was granted permission to draw the supply lines – During pendency of proceedings, the Electricity sub-station was fully constructed – Held: The High Court granted an order of status quo with respect to the construction of the Electricity Sub-station even though respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to produce any documentary evidence whatsoever to establish their title to the suit property – It was categorically held in the earlier round of litigation that the mother of respondents No. 1 to 3 and the predecessor in title, had failed to establish her title to the suit property – The said finding was admittedly not challenged by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and had attained finality – In this view of the matter, the respondents failed to make out a prima facie case, which would have justified the grant of an interim injunction – Furthermore, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also failed to establish that the Electricity Sub-station was being constructed on their land – Respondents No. 1 to 3 failed to describe the specific area which was in their alleged possession over which the Electricity Sub-station was being constructed – The balance of convenience was entirely in favour of the appellant since the entire Electricity Sub-station was fully constructed, and was at the stage of being energised for supply of electricity – It is estimated to provide electricity to approximately 1 lakh people – Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to produce any evidence of their possession over the vacant land, no undue hardship or prejudice would be caused to them, in the event the appellant is permitted to proceed with the energisation of the Electricity sub-station – In the event that respondents No. 1 to 3 are able to establish their title and possession to any part of the property utilised for the Electricity Sub-station, they would be entitled to compensation for any damage, detriment or inconvenience caused, in accordance with s.67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and/or any other law for the time being in force – The overriding public interest of providing electricity to the local populace would far outweigh the alleged interest of Respondent nos.1 to 3 – The impugned Judgment ordering the maintenance of status quo with respect to the Suit property till the final disposal of the title suit is vacated – The findings given in this judgment are prima facie in nature given at the interim stage, and will not influence the trial of the case – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.67(3) – Temporary Injunction – Compensation.
Judge	Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 5
Petitioner	The State Of Jharkhand
Respondent	Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.
SCR	[2019] 1 S.C.R. 25
Judgement Date	2019-01-03
Case Number	21

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

The State of Jharkhand Vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Pramod Kumar & Anr. Vs. Zalak Singh & Ors.

Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Salig Ram & Ors.

Jose Vs. Johnson

Vinod Kumar Dhall Vs. Dharampal Dhall (deceased) Through His Lrs. & Ors.

Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors.

Kesar Bai Vs. Genda Lal & Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs. Subhash Chander Jain and Ors.

Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

N.v. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors. Vs. Mariyamma (dead) By Proposed Lrs. and Ors.

The State of Jharkhand Vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.

The State of Jharkhand Vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Pramod Kumar & Anr. Vs. Zalak Singh & Ors.

Ram Lal & Ors. Vs. Salig Ram & Ors.

Jose Vs. Johnson

Vinod Kumar Dhall Vs. Dharampal Dhall (deceased) Through His Lrs. & Ors.

Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar & Ors Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund & Ors.

Kesar Bai Vs. Genda Lal & Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs. Subhash Chander Jain and Ors.

Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

N.v. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors. Vs. Mariyamma (dead) By Proposed Lrs. and Ors.

The State of Jharkhand Vs. Surendra Kumar Srivastava & Ors.