Ramchandra Mahto vs Prabhu Mahto

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.623 of 2019
CNR No. BRHC010349302019
======================================================
Ramchandra Mahto Son of Ramanand Mahto Resident of Village- Bajara
Bairiya, P.O.- Damarapur, P.S.- Sahodra, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Prabhu Mahto Son of Ramugrah Mahto Resident of Village- Bajjara Bairiya,
P.O. Damarapur, P.S.- Sahodra, District- West Champaran.
2. Ram Sanehi Mahto Son of Ramugrah Mahto Resident of Village- Bajjara
Bairiya, P.O. Damarapur, P.S.- Sahodra, District- West Champaran.
3. Adlat Mahto Son of Ramugrah Mahto Resident of Village- Bajjara Bairiya,
P.O. Damarapur, P.S.- Sahodra, District- West Champaran.
4. Baleshwar Nath Tiwary Deed writer, Sub- Registry Officer, Shikarpur, P.O.
and P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran.
5. Subh Narayan Prasad Kushwaha Son of Laxaman Prasad Resident of
village- Purushottampur, P.O.- Maniyari, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West
Champaran.
6. Vinod Prasad Son of Birjjhan Mahto Resident of village- Koirgawar Harsari,
P.O.- Narkatiyaganj, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- East Champaran.
7. Sharda Devi Wife of Ramlal Mahto Resident of village- Gauripur
Majhariya, P.O.- Bargajawa, P.S.- Shikarpur, District- West Champaran.
8. Rita Devi Wife of Dinesh Mahto Resident of village- Kumiha, Bishunpurwa,
P.O.- Bagaha, P.S.- Bagaha, District- West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Rashmi Jha, Advocate
Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-11-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I
intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of
admission itself.
2. The present civil miscellaneous petition has been

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.623 of 2019 dt.02-11-2026
2/5
filed for setting aside the judgment/order dated 27.10.2018
passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Bettiah, West
Champaran in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2010, whereby and
whereunder the learned appellate court dismissed the
miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the
order dated 01.07.2009 passed by the learned Munsif, Bettiah in
Title Suit No. 01 of 2009, in which the application dated
26.05.2010 filed on behalf of the plaintiff for the grant of an ad-
interim injunction had been rejected.
3. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has
suffered two adverse orders, first at the hands of the learned
Munsif, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 01 of 2009, and thereafter, in
Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2010 by the learned appellate court,
whereby and whereunder, both courts did not find any material
to grant an ad-interim injunction to the petitioner who is the
plaintiff before the learned trial court. Rather, the learned
appellate court noted the fact that the plaintiff was not in
possession and no prima facie case was made out in his favour,
st
and the defendants 1 set were in possession. The learned
appellate court also took note of the fact that the claim of the
st
defendants 1 set was based on a registered deed of gift, which
st
by legal fiction showed the possession of the defendants 1 set.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.623 of 2019 dt.02-11-2026
3/5
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however,
tried to impress upon the Court that the impugned orders are bad
in the eyes of law and failed to consider that suit land is the joint
st
property of plaintiff and defendants 1 set and petitioner and
respondents are coparcener. The learned subordinate courts have
also not taken into consideration the fact that earlier the father
of the petitioner filed title suit bearing No. 38 of 1989 which
was contested and against the judgment/order of the said title
suit, Title Appeal No. 68 of 1989 was filed, which stood
dismissed for want of pairvi but pairvi was left in the said case
as the defendants admitted the claim of the petitioner’s father
over the suit land.
5. Whatever might be the contention of the petitioner
who is the plaintiff before the learned trial court, the fact
remains that there are two concurrent findings against the
petitioner regarding grant of an interim injunction. No
significant material has been brought on record to support the
claim of the petitioner for the grant of an ad-interim injunction.
Rather, some disputed questions have been raised by the
petitioner, and the petitioner is already before the learned trial
court for the redressal of his grievance. For the grant of an
injunction, the essential ingredients like the presence of a prima

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.623 of 2019 dt.02-11-2026
4/5
facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to be
caused to the petitioner ought to have been shown, but it appears
that the petitioner has failed to support his contention with
cogent material. Moreover, the injunction was refused in a title
suit which is of the year 2009. If the petitioner has continued
without an injunction for so many years, he can also live
without injunction for some more time and allow the learned
trial court to dispose of the title suit.
6. It is also to be noted that concurrent findings of two
courts on the point of refusal of injunction has been assailed
before this Court in the present petition. Normally, the High
Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact made
by two subordinate courts unless those findings are deemed
perverse or there is manifest error of record or an apparent
illegality. This principle is rooted in the idea that appellate
courts should not lightly interfere with the decisions of lower
courts, especially when those lower courts have reached the
same conclusion based on the material presented.
7 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash
Harishchandra Muranjan Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority and Another, reported in (2009) 3 SCC
432, declined to interfere when prayer for injunction was

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.623 of 2019 dt.02-11-2026
5/5
concurrently refused by two courts and held that it could take a
different view only if the judgment of the court below was
found to be perverse. Thus, only exception is perversity or
apparent illegality in the impugned orders on the face of record.
In the impugned order, I do not find any such perversity or
outright illegality.
8. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present civil
miscellaneous petition, the same is dismissed.


(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.11.2026
Transmission Date NA