Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a special leave petition filed by the petitioner regarding dispossession from certain premises. The petitioner had previously filed an undertaking in the High Court agreeing to vacate the premises, which was brought to the Supreme Court's attention during the proceedings. The court noted that the petitioner sought an interim order to stay dispossession despite this undertaking. The respondents were represented by counsel who highlighted the undertaking, leading the court to consider the petitioner's conduct in suppressing this fact. The court ultimately decided not to grant any interim relief, stating that the decision to grant such relief is discretionary and influenced by the petitioner's actions. The matter was scheduled for final disposal in May 2009, with a direction for the petitioner to file any rejoinder within three weeks. The court's ruling underscored the importance of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Relief - Discretionary Power of Court - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court declined to grant an interim order of stay of dispossession as the petitioner had suppressed the fact of filing an undertaking to vacate the premises. The court emphasized that the grant of such relief is at the discretion of the court, particularly in light of the petitioner's conduct (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an interim order of stay of dispossession despite filing an undertaking to vacate the premises.
Final Decision
The court declined to grant an interim order of stay of dispossession, citing the petitioner's suppression of the undertaking filed in the High Court. The matter was scheduled for final disposal in May 2009.
Law Points
- Discretionary power of court
- interim relief
- undertaking to vacate premises
