Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Fayzan Khan, Devendra Mishra, Firoz Ismail Khan, and Rajesh Kanojiya, filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of certain tenements in a slum rehabilitation building, and a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession. The suit was filed against the Superintendent of Land Records, Tehsildar, City Survey Officer, Collector, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Executive Engineer (SRA), Klassik Vinyl Products Pvt. Ltd. (now LLP), A.H. Wadia Charity Trust, and the State of Maharashtra. The appellants claimed to be original slum dwellers who were eligible for allotment of tenements under the SRA scheme. They alleged that the respondent no. 7 (Klassik Vinyl Products LLP) was attempting to dispossess them illegally. Along with the suit, the appellants filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession. The Trial Court, by order dated 4th February 2023, rejected the injunction application, holding that the appellants had failed to establish a prima facie case. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeal under Section 104(1)(ffa) of the CPC. The High Court of Bombay, presided over by Justice N. J. Jamadar, heard the appeal. The court considered the submissions of the appellants' counsel, Mr. Rohan Surve, and the respondents' counsel, Mr. Yogesh Patil (for respondent nos. 5 and 6) and Mr. Vishal Kanade (for respondent no. 7). The court observed that the Trial Court had erred in rejecting the injunction application without properly considering the balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The court noted that the appellants had made out a strong prima facie case as they were original slum dwellers and had been allotted the tenements. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the appellants and that they would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted temporary injunction in favor of the appellants, directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property pending the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for temporary injunction solely on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, without considering the balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case as they were original slum dwellers and had been allotted the tenements in question. (Paras 10-15) B) Slum Rehabilitation - Eligibility of Slum Dwellers - Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Scheme - The dispute pertained to the eligibility of the plaintiffs as original slum dwellers and the allotment of tenements under the SRA scheme. The court noted that the plaintiffs had been declared eligible by the SRA and had been in possession of the tenements. The court directed status quo to be maintained pending the disposal of the suit. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Balance of Convenience - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs as they were in possession of the tenements and any interference would cause irreparable loss. The court set aside the impugned order and granted temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of slum rehabilitation tenements, without properly considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 4th February 2023, and granted temporary injunction in favor of the appellants, directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property pending disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Temporary injunction
- Suit for declaration of ownership and possession
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority
- Eligibility of slum dwellers
