Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dismissed an application filed by defendant No.1A (Vivek Madhavlal Pittie) seeking vacation of an interim injunction granted on 15.06.2015 in a commercial suit concerning a development agreement. The suit was filed by Manas Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff) against the original defendant No.1 and others. The background involves a partition suit (Suit No.224 of 1961) where the original defendant No.1 was appointed Receiver. In 2002, permission was obtained to redevelop the suit property, and a development agreement was executed on 16.12.2003 between the original defendant No.1 and the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained an interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the development. The defendant No.1A (who stepped into the shoes of the original defendant No.1) filed the present application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show continued readiness and willingness to perform its part of the agreement, as no development activity occurred after the injunction. The plaintiff opposed, contending that the defendant No.1A initiated multiple litigations and objections before MHADA, which stalled the project. The Court analyzed the sequence of events and found that the plaintiff's inability to proceed was directly attributable to the defendant's own conduct. The Court held that the subsequent events did not justify vacating the injunction, as the plaintiff's readiness and willingness remained intact. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Vacation of Interim Injunction - Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC - Subsequent Events - The applicant sought vacation of interim injunction granted on 15.06.2015 on the ground that the plaintiff failed to show continued readiness and willingness to perform the development agreement. The Court held that the plaintiff's inability to proceed was due to multifarious litigations initiated by the defendant No.1A, and therefore, the subsequent events did not justify vacating the injunction. (Paras 1-3, 20-22) B) Contract Law - Development Agreement - Readiness and Willingness - Specific Performance - The plaintiff obtained interim injunction on the basis of prima facie readiness and willingness. The defendant alleged that no steps were taken after the injunction. The Court found that the defendant's own actions, including litigations and objections before MHADA, prevented the plaintiff from proceeding. Hence, the plaintiff's readiness and willingness was not shown to be lacking. (Paras 2-3, 20-22) C) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Earlier Application for Vacation - The plaintiff argued that an earlier application for vacating the interim injunction had failed. The Court noted that the present application was based on subsequent events, and therefore, the principle of res judicata did not bar it. However, on merits, the application was dismissed. (Para 3, 20-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether events occurring subsequent to the order dated 15.06.2015 granting interim injunction justify the Court exercising power under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to vacate the injunction.
Final Decision
The application (Interim Application No.4794 of 2022) is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC
- Vacation of interim injunction
- Readiness and willingness to perform contract
- Subsequent events
- Development agreement
- Specific performance
