Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the Appellate Court, District Judge-1, Beed, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.31/2020. The Appellate Court had granted a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit property but allowed defendant nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw the compensation amount awarded in LAR No.335/2012. The petitioners sought to set aside the part of the order permitting withdrawal of compensation. The High Court noted that the suit property was acquired and compensation was awarded. The petitioners claimed ownership and sought injunction to protect their rights. The trial court had rejected the injunction application, but the Appellate Court partially allowed it. The High Court held that allowing withdrawal of compensation would render the injunction ineffective and cause irreparable loss to the petitioners. The Court set aside the part of the Appellate Court order permitting withdrawal and directed that the compensation amount be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank pending disposal of the suit. The writ petition was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Compensation Withdrawal - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioners challenged the Appellate Court's order allowing withdrawal of compensation amount while granting injunction against alienation. The High Court held that permitting withdrawal of compensation would frustrate the purpose of the injunction and cause irreparable loss to the petitioners, as the compensation is the substitute for the property. The Court set aside the part of the order allowing withdrawal and directed that the compensation amount be kept in fixed deposit pending disposal of the suit. (Paras 1-10) B) Property Law - Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - The Court found that the petitioners had a strong prima facie case regarding their claim over the suit property, and the balance of convenience was in their favor. The respondents had no right to withdraw the compensation amount as it would defeat the purpose of the suit. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Court erred in permitting defendant nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw the compensation amount awarded in LAR No.335/2012, despite granting temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit property.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition, setting aside the part of the Appellate Court order permitting withdrawal of compensation. The Court directed that the compensation amount be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalized bank pending disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- compensation withdrawal
- property dispute
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
