Holding

The Supreme Court held that the respondents failed to make out a prima facie case for an interim injunction, the High Court’s status‑quo order was erroneous, and the balance of convenience and public interest warranted allowing the electricity board to proceed with the sub‑station, with compensation, if any, to be determined under Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Summary

The State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand State Electricity Board sought to energise a fully constructed electricity sub‑station on land claimed by three respondents who alleged possession of the suit property. The respondents had earlier failed to establish a title to the land in a title suit and could not specify the exact portion of land allegedly occupied by the sub‑station. The trial court and the district court dismissed the respondents' application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX of the CPC, finding no prima facie case. The Jharkhand High Court, however, ordered a status‑quo pending the title suit, which the Supreme Court held to be erroneous. The Supreme Court restored the lower courts' decisions, vacated the High Court's order, and held that the balance of convenience and public interest favored allowing the sub‑station to be energised, with any future compensation governed by Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the High Court judgment set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents made out a prima facie case justifying the grant of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing a status‑quo on the disputed land pending the outcome of the title suit.
Whether the balance of convenience and public interest favored the electricity board’s completion and energisation of the sub‑station.
Whether any compensation, if the respondents later establish title, would be governed by Section 67(3) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2
Electricity Act, 2003s. Section 67(3)

Subjects

temporary injunctionstatus quopublic interestbalance of conveniencetitle suitelectricity sub‑stationcompensationSection 67Civil Procedure Codeland dispute

Judgment

[2019] 1 S.C.R. 25 25

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND A
v.
SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2019)
JANUARY 03, 2019 B
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
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
C
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 D
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 –
E
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 F
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
G
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
H
25
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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
D
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
E 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.
F Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Single Judge granted an order of status quo
with respect to the construction of the Electricity Sub-station even
though the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to produce
any documentary evidence whatsoever to establish their title to
G the suit property. The Additional District Judge in the earlier
round of litigation had categorically held 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 has
admittedly not been challenged by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The
said finding has attained finality. In this view of the matter, the
H Respondents failed to make out a prima facie case, which would
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 27

have justified the grant of an interim injunction. Furthermore, A
the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also failed to establish that
the Electricity Sub-station was being constructed on their land.
The 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. [Paras 6.3, 6.4][37-C-F]
B
2. 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 C
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 Electricity Sub-station is complete in all respects and D
ready to be energised, as per the documentary evidence placed
before the Court. The overriding public interest of providing
electricity to the local populace would far outweigh the alleged
interest of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. In view of the said facts and
circumstances, the decision of the Civil Judge and the District
Judge in refusing to grant a Temporary Injunction in Title Suit E
was justified, and is restored. The impugned Judgment ordering
the maintenance of status quo with respect to the Suit property
till the final disposal of the Title Suit stands vacated. [Paras 6.6,
6.7, 6.8 and 7][38-B-F]
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC F
423 : [2015] 3 SCR 197; Meghmala & Ors. v. G.
Narasimha Reddy & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 383 : [2010]
10 SCR 47; Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs v. M.
Varadappa Naidu (dead) by LRs & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC
769 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 850 – referred to G
Case Law Reference
[2015] 3 SCR 197 referred to Para 4.1
[2010] 10 SCR 47 referred to Para 4.6
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 850 referred to Para 4.6
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 21 of
2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2015 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2081 of 2015.
WITH
B
Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2019.
Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka, Ravi Bharuka,
Akshay Amritanshu, Aditya Singhal, Ashwarya Sinha, Advs. for the
Appellant.
C Satpal Singh, M. B. Singh, V. S. Dubey, Pankaj Kr., Ashwarya
Sinha, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
D 1. The present Civil Appeals arise out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 26645
and 24684 of 2015 which have been filed to challenge the Judgment
dated May 19, 2015 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in W.P. (C)
No. 2081 of 2015. The Writ Petition had been filed by Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 herein to challenge the Order dated 07.04.2015 refusing to grant
Interim Relief in an Application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
E
of the CPC in Title Suit No. 45/2015, and Order dated 21.04.2015 passed
by the District Court.
2. A brief factual background of this case is set out herein below:
2.1. According to the Writ Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
F herein, their mother – late Smt. Shyal Devi had purchased
about 3.61 acres of land1 (“suit property”) from Raju Gour
and Shatrughan Gour by way of two unregistered Sale Deeds
dated 30.04.1958. According to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, late

1
Recorded in R.S. Khatian of 1937 under Khata No. 19 (Plot Nos. 3737, 3733, 3710,
G 3741, 3749, 3751, 3752, 3753, 3754 and 3755), Khata No. 21 (Plot No. 3742), Khata
No. 33 [Plot Nos. 3718, New Plot Nos. 2657, 2658, 2659, 2660, a portion of 2650,
2626(p), 2656(p), 2653(p), 2655(p) Thana No. 1198 and 1151]. The above-described
land was stated to be situated in mouza agricultural and bara, P.S. Sidhgora, District
Singhbhum East, and was incorporated in new Khatian No. 24 in the finally published
record of rights of Jamshedpur Notified Area (1995-1996).
H
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 29
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Smt. Shyal Devi had raised a structure over a part of the suit A
property, and was cultivating the rest of it. The said land was
situated adjacent to the land belonging to the Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation.
2.2. In 1992, Smt. Shyal Devi filed Title Suit No. 153/1992 before
the Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur alleging that the officials of B
the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation were disturbing
her possession of the suit property since 1990.
The Additional Munsif vide Judgment and Decree dated
18/27.02.1999 decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff – late
Smt. Shyal Devi, and confirmed her possession since 1958. C
The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was restrained
from interfering with the peaceful possession of Smt. Shyal
Devi. The relevant extract of the findings of the Additional
Munsif contained in the Judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
“11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I found that D
plaintiff [Smt. Shyal Devi] has proved her possession of
the suit land since 1958 and as such these issues are
decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendant.”
2.3. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation filed Title Appeal E
No. 20/1999 to challenge the Judgment and Decree dated
18/27.02.1999 before the Additional District Judge, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
The Title Appeal No. 20/1999 was dismissed by the
Additional District Judge on the ground of possession. However, F
the District Judge held that the Plaintiff had failed to establish
her title, and it would be open for the Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation to file a suit against late Smt. Shyal Devi for
declaration of title over the land, and to seek her eviction.
2.4. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation preferred Second
G
Appeal No. 17509/2005 against the Judgment dated 29.08.2005
passed by the Additional District Judge before the Jharkhand
High Court, which is currently pending adjudication.
2.5. It is relevant to mention that late Smt. Shyal Devi did not
challenge the finding that she had failed to establish her title
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A before the High Court. Hence, the finding of the Additional
District Judge attained finality.
2.6. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the Deputy
Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur sought a
No-Objection Certificate vide letter dated 13.10.2012 from
B the Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand for the construction
of an Electricity Sub-station on the land comprised in Khata
No. 24 (Plot Nos. 2650, 2652, 2656, and 2657) in Jamshedpur,
recorded in the name of the Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation.
C The Transport Commissioner vide letter dated
04.03.2015 conveyed that it had no objection for transfer of
the said land for the construction of an Electricity Sub-station
thereupon.
2.7. During the pendency of proceedings before the High Court,
D Smt. Shyal Devi expired 24.02.2014 leaving behind three sons
i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, as her legal representatives and
successors.
2.8. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed Title Suit No. 45/2015 before
the Civil Judge (Junior Division – I), Jamshedpur seeking
E permanent injunction to restrain the Appellant –The General
Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No.
24684 of 2015] from interfering with their alleged possession
of the suit property, along with an Application for Temporary
Injunction.

F 2.9. The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) vide Order dated
07.04.2015 dismissed the Application for Temporary Injunction
filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It was held that Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 failed to describe the specific area/portion of the
suit property which was in their alleged possession, over which
the construction of the Electricity Sub-station was being carried
G out by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.
The Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) concluded that
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to make out a prima facie
case, and held that no irreparable loss would be caused, which
could not be compensated in terms of money.
H
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 31
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

2.10. Aggrieved by the Order dated 07.04.2015, Respondent Nos. A
1 to 3 filed an Appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the
CPC before the District Judge III-cum-MACT, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur.
The Appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 21.04.2015
whereby the District Judge affirmed the Order passed by the B
Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) dated 07.04.2015.
It was held that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to
demarcate the suit property in the Plaint to show that the
construction activity was taking place on their land. The
Plaintiffs had not placed on record the old Khatian, or the new C
Khatian.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were making a claim of
possession with respect to 3.61 acres of land recorded in R.S.
Khatian of 1937 under Khata No. 19 (Plot Nos. 3737, 3733,
3710, 3741, 3749, 3751, 3752, 3753, 3754 and 3755), Khata D
No. 21 (Plot No. 3742), Khata No. 33 [Plot Nos. 3718, New
Plot Nos. 2657, 2658, 2659, 2660, a portion of 2650, 2626(p),
2656(p), 2653(p), 2655(p) Thana No. 1198 and 1151]. The
said land stated to be situated in Mouza Baridih and Bara, P.S.
Sidhgora, District Singhbhum East, in new Khatian No. 24 in
the finally published record of rights of Jamshedpur Notified E
Area (1995-1996).
On the other hand, the Counsel for the State Electricity
Board stated that 1.47 acres of land recorded as Khata No.
24 (Plot Nos. 2650, 2652, 2656 and 2657) was registered in
the name of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, as F
Anabad land. The Board placed reliance on trace map, and a
letter dated March 4, 2015 addressed by the Transport
Commissioner, Ranchi, Jharkhand to the Deputy Commissioner,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur making the land available for the
Jharkhand State Electricity Board. G
The District Court held that the Plaintiffs had produced
no rent receipts, or municipal receipts to corroborate their plea
of alleged possession over the disputed suit property.
The District Court found that Respondent No. 3 –
Narendra Kumar Srivastava had concealed a material fact that H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A he had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking an
injunction from construction of a boundary wall and digging on
the suit property by the Appellant – The General Manager,
Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of
2015]. The Writ Petition came to be withdrawn on 24.04.2015.
The suppression of a material fact warranted the drawing of
B
an adverse inference against the Respondents. The grant of
injunction being a discretionary relief, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
were found to not be entitled to the same.
2.11. Aggrieved by the judgment of the District Judge, Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 filed W.P. (C) No. 2081 of 2015 before the
C Jharkhand High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash
the Order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior
Division – I) in Title Suit No. 45/2015, and Order dated
21.04.2015 passed by the District Court in Misc. Appeal No.
5/2015.
D 2.12. The Electricity Board filed a Counter Affidavit along with
photographs of the construction of the Electricity Sub-station.
It was submitted that almost 90% of the construction work of
the Electricity Sub-station had already been completed. It was
further stated that the grant of an injunction would seriously
E affect public interest, and the welfare scheme for providing
electricity to the local populace at subsidised rates.
2.13. The learned Single Judge of the High Court vide the
impugned Judgment dated 19.05.2015 allowed W.P. (C) No.
2081 of 2015 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and directed the
F parties to maintain statusquo with respect to the suit property.
It was clarified, that the Appellant – The General Manager,
Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of
2015] was, however, at liberty to raise construction on any
other land, except the disputed suit property.

G The learned Single Judge held that the findings of the
courts below with respect to there being no prima facie case
in favour of Respondents No. 1 to 3 was erroneous in view of
the judicial findings in their favour in the previous round of
litigation in Title Suit No. 153/1992, and Title Appeal No. 20/1999.

H
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 33
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

The Single Judge held that the courts below dismissed A
the Application for Temporary Injunction filed by Respondent
Nos 1 to 3 on the ground that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Plaintiffs)
had failed to specifically describe the disputed suit property,
even though the description of the disputed suit property was
not objected by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.
B
On balance of convenience, the Single Judge held that
in case the Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand State
Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] 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 No. 45/2015 was decreed in their favour. C

The Single Judge held that the photographs produced
by the Appellant Electricity Board only indicated the raising of
electricity poles, and no other construction had been raised on
the disputed Suit Land.
D
3. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 19.05.2015 passed
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the State of Jharkhand
filed the present S.L.P. (C) No. 26645 of 2015, and the General Manager,
Jharkhand State Electricity Board filed S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015.
3.1.This Court vide Interim Order dated 14.12.2015, granted liberty E
to the Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand State
Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] to draw
the supply lines.
3.2.The Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand State
Electricity Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] in I.A. F
Nos. 91857 & 91859/2018, sought permission to energise the
Electricity Sub-station, after depositing the costs of the suit
property as assessed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur before
the Deputy Commissioner, Jamshedpur.
3.3.During the pendency of the proceedings, the Electricity Sub-
G
station has been fully constructed having a capacity of 33/11
K.V. As per the Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division,
Jamshedpur approximately 1 lakh people residing in the nearby
areas would be benefitted by the supply of electricity, and it
would result in reduction of loss of load on other Electricity
Sub-stations situated in the vicinity. H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A 4. The Appellants and Respondent No. 4 in both the Special Leave
Petitions were represented by Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate,
while Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were represented by Mr. Satpal Singh,
Advocate.
4.1. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants,
B inter alia submitted that Writ Petition No. 2081 of 2015, seeking
a writ of certiorari, was not maintainable, as it was filed to
challenge judicial orders passed by civil courts. Learned
Counsel placed reliance on the decision of a three-judge bench
in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.2.
C 4.2. On merits, it was submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did
not have title to the disputed suit property. The Counsel relied
on the findings in the Judgment dated 29.09.2005 passed in
Title Appeal No. 20/1999 wherein the Additional District Judge
had clearly held that the mother of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had
failed to prove her title with respect to the disputed suit property.
D The said finding attained finality, since late Smt. Shyal Devi, or
her legal heirs and successors i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had
not challenged the finding any further.
4.3. It was further submitted that the State of Jharkhand was the
owner of the suit property, which was evidenced from the
E revenue records of the suit property recorded in the name of
the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation.
The learned Senior Counsel submitted that TISCO Ltd.
had transferred 16.529 acres of land to the Bihar State Road
Transport Corporation. The suit property was recorded in the
F name of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation in the
recent survey (khatiyal). The Electricity Sub-station has been
constructed on 1.47 acres of land registered as Khata No. 24
(Plot Nos. 2650, 2652, 2656 and 2657) made available to the
Jharkhand State Electricity Board by the Transport Department,
G Ranchi, Jharkhand vide letter dated 04.03.2015.
4.4. Pursuant to the interim Order dated 14.12.2015, the Electricity
Sub-station had been completely constructed, and would provide
electricity to over 1 lakh people residing in the vicinity.
2
(2015) 5 SCC 423.
H
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 35
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

4.5. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge erred A
in allowing W.P. (C) No. 2081 of 2015 since Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 had failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour.
They had also failed to demarcate the area in their alleged
possession, in the Plaint, on which the electricity Sub-station
was being constructed.
B
The balance of convenience was in favour of the
Appellant-Electricity Board, in view of the over-riding public
interest in providing electricity to over 1 lakh people. Further,
no irreparable loss or injury would be caused to Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 as they could always be adequately compensated
under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if found entitled. C

4.6. On the other hand, Advocate Mr. Satpal Singh supported the
findings of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
It was submitted that the title to the disputed suit property
vested in Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 since the issue pertaining to D
title was decided by the Additional Munsif in favour of the
mother of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, vide Judgment dated
18.02.1999. Title Appeal No. 20/1999 filed by the Bihar State
Road Transport Corporation against the Judgment of the
Additional Munsif was dismissed by the Additional District
Judge, vide Judgment dated 29.08.2005. Although, Second E
Appeal No. 17509/2005 had been filed by the Bihar State
Transport Corporation against the Judgment dated 29.08.2005
passed by the Additional District Judge, it was pending final
determination before the High Court.
The learned Advocate contended that the mere pendency F
of the Second Appeal No. 17059/2005 would not entitle the
Bihar State Road Transport Corporation to transfer the disputed
suit property to the Appellant – General Manager, Jharkhand
State Electricity Board [in SLP (Civil) No. 24684 of 2015].
The Appellant–State Electricity Board failed to establish G
its title or possession over the disputed Suit property, since it
had not produced any material except the letter of the Transport
Commissioner dated 04.03.2015 and a map.

H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A The learned Counsel relied on the decisions of this Court
in Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors.3 and
Rame Gowda (dead) by LRs v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead)
by LRs & Anr.4 to submit that a person who is in settled
possession, even in case he is a trespasser, has the right to be
protected against forcible eviction, and can be evicted only
B
after following the procedure prescribed by law.
5. The limited issue which arises for consideration in the present
Civil Appeals is whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was
justified in directing the parties to maintain status quo during the
pendency of the Title Suit No. 45/2015 before the Court of Civil Judge
C (Junior Division – I), Jamshedpur.
6. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
We have heard the Counsel for both parties at length, perused the
pleadings, and the written submissions filed in the present Civil Appeals.
D 6.1. With respect to the first submission of the learned counsel for
the Appellants that the Writ Petition filed by Respondent Nos.
1 to 3/Plaintiffs for a writ of certiorari to quash the Order
dated 07.04.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)
and the Order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the District Judge
E was not maintainable in view of the judgment of the three-
judge bench in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors.5, there
cannot be any dispute to the law laid down by this Court in
Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (supra), but in the
facts of the present case, we do not propose to unsettle the
judgment of the High Court on the above ground due to two
F reasons, firstly, in the High Court, the Appellants, who were
Respondents in the Writ Petition,did not challenge the
maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, and secondly, had the Appellants raised
the above objection regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition,
G the course open for Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was to
amend the cause title of the writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution, and such a Writ Petition under Article 227
would have been clearly maintainable.
3
(2010) 8 SCC 383, paragraphs 46-48.
4
(2004) 1 SCC 769.
5
H (2015) 5 SCC 423.
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SURENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 37
[INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

6.2. The Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging the orders A
passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant interim injunction under
Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC could very well be
maintainable, and the opportunity to amend the cause title by
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by raising any objection to that effect
having been denied to them, we, instead of setting aside the
B
judgment of the High Court on the above ground, proceed to
examine the contentions on merits.
6.3. The Learned Single Judge granted an order of status quo
with respect to the construction of the Electricity Sub-station
even though the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein had
failed to produce any documentary evidence whatsoever to C
establish their title to the suit property.
The Additional District Judge in the earlier round of
litigation, in Title Appeal No. 20/1999 vide Judgment dated
29.08.2005 had categorically held that late Smt. Shyal Devi,
the mother of Respondents No. 1 to 3 and the predecessor in D
title, had failed to establish her title to the suit property. The
said finding has admittedly not been challenged by Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3. The said finding has 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. E
6.4. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also failed
to establish that the Electricity Sub-station was being
constructed on their land. The 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 F
constructed.
6.5. The balance of convenience lies entirely in favour of the
Appellant – The General Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity
Board [in S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] since the entire
Electricity Sub-station has been fully constructed, and is now G
at the stage of being energised for supply of electricity inter
alia to four feeders viz. Bhuiyadih (BHU), Baridih (BRD),
Vidyapatinagar (VPN). It is estimated to provide electricity to
approximately 1 lakh people. The Board is statutorily
empowered under Section 67 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to
undertake all actions necessary for transmission or supply of H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.

A electricity, subject to the procedure under the Electricity Act,
2003.
6.6. 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
B – The General Manager, Jharkhand State Electricity Board [in
S.L.P. (C) No. 24684 of 2015] is permitted to proceed with the
energisation of the Electricity sub-station.
6.7. 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
C 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.
6.8. The Electricity Sub-station is complete in all respects and
D ready to be energised, as per the documentary evidence placed
before the Court. The overriding public interest of providing
electricity to the local populace would far outweigh the alleged
interest of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
decision of the Civil Judge (Junior Division – I) and the District
E
Judge in refusing to grant a Temporary Injunction in Title Suit
No. 45/2015, was justified, and is restored.
7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Appeals are allowed,
and the impugned Judgment dated May 19, 2005 passed by the Learned
Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in Writ Petition No. 2081 of
F
2015 is hereby set aside. The impugned Judgment ordering the
maintenance of status quo with respect to the Suit property till the final
disposal of the Title Suit No. 45/2015 stands 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.
G
The pending applications be disposed of accordingly.
Ordered accordingly.

Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.
H