Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Jatin Jitendra Rasiklal Shah, was the original defendant No.1 and owner of Nazul Plot No. 2/1 in Amravati. The respondent No.1, Shardul Associates, a partnership firm, sent a draft development agreement to the applicant for consideration, along with photocopies of two postdated cheques as evidence of financial capacity. The applicant did not sign the agreement. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Suit No. 315/2021 seeking specific performance of the alleged development agreement and obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 01/07/2022 restraining the applicant from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property. The applicant challenged this order by way of Civil Revision Application No. 94/2022. The High Court examined whether the trial court was justified in granting the ex-parte injunction. The court noted that the agreement was only a draft and not a concluded contract, and the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for specific performance. The balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant-owner, and no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim relief.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property based on a draft development agreement that was never executed. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for specific performance as the agreement was only a draft and not a concluded contract. The balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant, who was the owner of the property. The ex-parte injunction was set aside. (Paras 8-12) B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Draft Agreement - Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963 - A draft agreement shared for suggestions does not constitute a concluded contract capable of specific performance. The plaintiff must show readiness and willingness to perform, which was not established. The court held that no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if injunction was not granted, as the plaintiff had no vested right in the property. (Paras 9-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property without considering whether a prima facie case existed for specific performance of a draft development agreement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision application, set aside the impugned order dated 01/07/2022, and dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim relief. The trial court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Ex-parte injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
- specific performance of contract
- draft agreement
- development agreement
- civil revision
