Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an interim injunction order dated 17th June, 2019 passed by the trial court in Special Civil Suit No. 353/2019. The respondent-plaintiff, M/s. City Corporation Ltd., a land developer, had filed the suit seeking to restrain the appellants-defendants from obstructing their possession over suit land which was part of a Special Township Project at Hadapsar and Mundhwa villages. The plaintiff claimed to have acquired development rights under a joint development agreement dated 24th September, 2004 with the defendants, and the State of Maharashtra had notified the project under Section 18(3) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 vide notification dated 8th March, 2006. The trial court, after hearing both sides, granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to the plaintiff's possession till disposal of the suit. The defendants challenged this order in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court heard the matter and framed the sole issue of whether the impugned order called for interference. The court noted that the trial court had recorded prima facie findings regarding the plaintiff's possession and the balance of convenience. The High Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court's order and held that the appeal did not warrant interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the interim order was confirmed. The court also disposed of the connected civil application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - The trial court granted an interim injunction restraining defendants from obstructing plaintiff's possession over suit property pending suit. The High Court held that the trial court's order was based on prima facie findings of possession and balance of convenience, and no interference was warranted as the appeal did not disclose any perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 1-4) B) Property Law - Development Agreement - Possession - Prima Facie Case - The plaintiff claimed possession under a joint development agreement dated 24th September, 2004 and subsequent notification under Section 18(3) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of possession and balance of convenience favored maintaining status quo. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order impugned dated 17th June, 2019 passed by the trial Court restraining the Appellants-Defendants from causing obstruction to possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property calls for interference in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's order dated 17th June, 2019. The connected civil application was also disposed of.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC
- Section 104 CPC
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury
- Interim injunction
- Possession
- Development agreement
