MOHD. MEHTAB KHAN & ORS. versus KHUSHNUMA IBRAHIM & ORS.

MOHD. MEHTAB KHAN & ORS. versus KHUSHNUMA IBRAHIM & ORS.

Appellate court erred in interfering with the trial court’s discretion refusing interim mandatory injunction as the trial court’s view was possible based on material and reasons; appellate jurisdiction over discretionary orders is circumscribed and does not permit substitution of opinion unless lower court’s exercise is arbitrary or untenable.

Parties
Appellant/defendant No.5: Mohd. Mehtab Khan; Respondent/plaintiff No.1: Khushnuma Ibrahim; Respondent/plaintiff No.2: Raghib Ibrahim Khan; Appellant/defendant No.10: Tabish Ebrahim Khan; Appellant/defendant No.11: Kamran Khan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Discretionary Interim Order of Bombay High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Interim Mandatory Injunction, Section 6 Specific Relief Act, Appellate Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Orders
Civil Procedure Property Law Interim Mandatory Injunction Section 6 Specific Relief Act Appellate Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Mehtab Khan

Appellant/defendant No.5

Khushnuma Ibrahim

Respondent/plaintiff No.1

Raghib Ibrahim Khan

Respondent/plaintiff No.2

Tabish Ebrahim Khan

Appellant/defendant No.10

Kamran Khan

Appellant/defendant No.11

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Discretionary Interim Order of Bombay High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellate court was justified in interfering with the trial court's discretion refusing interim mandatory injunction under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963
  2. 2 Scope and principles governing grant of mandatory interim relief
  3. 3 Jurisdiction and role of appellate court in reviewing discretionary orders

Ratio Decidendi

Appellate court erred in interfering with the trial court’s discretion refusing interim mandatory injunction as the trial court’s view was possible based on material and reasons; appellate jurisdiction over discretionary orders is circumscribed and does not permit substitution of opinion unless lower court’s exercise is arbitrary or untenable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order dated 09.10.2012 of Appellate Bench of Bombay High Court is set aside.
  • Order dated 13.04.2012 of learned Trial Judge is restored.