VIGILANCE IN INJUNCTION:
(1) The injunction in suit granted by trial court in favour plaintiff is an interlocutory order issued by trial court on the basis of its prima facie assumption that suit will succeed in trial and rejection of any such injunction against plaintiff or grant of any injunction in suit in favour of defendant by trial court is on the basis of prima facie assumption of trial court that suit will fail in trial.
(2) Taking into account the length of trial in civil suit in terms of time, it is pertinent to note that any such injunction granted or rejected by trial court at the preliminary stage of suit almost decides the case in advance by trial court judge's self apprehension about future outcome of case. This is the reason why litigant who succeeds in obtaining such injunction in his favour start dancing in joy of victory in legal battle. Yes, there are remedies provided by law to approach higher courts against any such apprehensive interlocutory order of trial court, but poor litigants who cannot afford such higher steps in law suffer solid damage in the process of long trial with delay in justice. It is therefore needless to state that the trial court is duty bound to take utmost care in drawing prima facie assumptive conclusion for or against injunction in suit. If such care is not taken, then it is a fit case for judicial vigilance to intervene for enquiry with its prima facie assumptive conclusion that there is something wrong with a judge sitting at bench in trial court.
(3) It is not just the question of judicial intelligence, but also the question of judicial integrity that matters in the matter of law and justice. What I have narrated here is nothing but a common sense, but I am sorry to state that people need judgments of higher courts to understand such common sense. -Adv.B.S.More
(1) The injunction in suit granted by trial court in favour plaintiff is an interlocutory order issued by trial court on the basis of its prima facie assumption that suit will succeed in trial and rejection of any such injunction against plaintiff or grant of any injunction in suit in favour of defendant by trial court is on the basis of prima facie assumption of trial court that suit will fail in trial.
(2) Taking into account the length of trial in civil suit in terms of time, it is pertinent to note that any such injunction granted or rejected by trial court at the preliminary stage of suit almost decides the case in advance by trial court judge's self apprehension about future outcome of case. This is the reason why litigant who succeeds in obtaining such injunction in his favour start dancing in joy of victory in legal battle. Yes, there are remedies provided by law to approach higher courts against any such apprehensive interlocutory order of trial court, but poor litigants who cannot afford such higher steps in law suffer solid damage in the process of long trial with delay in justice. It is therefore needless to state that the trial court is duty bound to take utmost care in drawing prima facie assumptive conclusion for or against injunction in suit. If such care is not taken, then it is a fit case for judicial vigilance to intervene for enquiry with its prima facie assumptive conclusion that there is something wrong with a judge sitting at bench in trial court.
(3) It is not just the question of judicial intelligence, but also the question of judicial integrity that matters in the matter of law and justice. What I have narrated here is nothing but a common sense, but I am sorry to state that people need judgments of higher courts to understand such common sense. -Adv.B.S.More
कोणत्याही टिप्पण्या नाहीत:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा