Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahesh Shambhulal Bhanushali @ Gori, proprietor of Vipul Octroi Centre, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 28/03/2022 passed by the District Judge-2, Ahmednagar, which confirmed the trial court's rejection of his application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract. The petitioner claimed that the respondents, Anuron Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mrs. Rakhi Narendra Firodiya, and Mr. Ashish Ramesh Pokharna, had agreed to sell him a property for Rs. 1,10,00,000 and received an advance of Rs. 10,00,000. The petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to execute the sale deed despite his readiness and willingness. The trial court rejected the injunction on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove a prima facie case, particularly his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The appellate court affirmed this finding. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the petitioner did not produce any evidence of financial capacity to pay the balance consideration and that the agreement itself was disputed. The court found no perversity in the impugned orders and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection of the temporary injunction.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree - The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness as he did not produce evidence of financial capacity to pay the balance consideration - Held that the trial court correctly rejected the temporary injunction (Paras 10-15).
B) Civil Procedure Code - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - For grant of temporary injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and irreparable loss - The court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case as the agreement was not proved to be in existence and the plaintiff's conduct showed lack of readiness - Held that the appellate court's order confirming rejection of injunction was proper (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court and appellate court were justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the trial court and appellate court rejecting the temporary injunction.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Readiness and willingness
- Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Temporary injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 20
Writ Petition No.14824 of 2019
Mr. S.R. Dheple, Mr. Abhay Kumar Apte for petitioner; Mr. S.P. Salgar h/f Mr. N.V. Gaware for Respondent No.1
Mahesh Shambhulal Bhanushali @ Gori, Prop. of Vipul Octroi Centre
Anuron Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mrs. Rakhi Narendra Firodiya, Mr. Ashish Ramesh Pokharna
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging rejection of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the order of the District Judge-2, Ahmednagar dated 28/03/2022 confirming the trial court's rejection of temporary injunction, and sought grant of temporary injunction restraining respondents from alienating the suit property.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that respondents agreed to sell property for Rs. 1,10,00,000 and received Rs. 10,00,000 as advance, but failed to execute sale deed despite petitioner's readiness and willingness.
Previous Decisions
Trial court rejected temporary injunction; appellate court (District Judge-2, Ahmednagar) confirmed the rejection on 28/03/2022.
Issues
Whether the trial court and appellate court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction?
Whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he had paid advance and was ready and willing to perform, and that the courts below erred in not granting injunction.
Respondent No.1 argued that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of financial capacity to pay the balance consideration and that the agreement itself was disputed.
Ratio Decidendi
For grant of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, including readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Failure to produce evidence of financial capacity to pay the balance consideration indicates lack of readiness and willingness, justifying rejection of injunction.
Judgment Excerpts
Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 28/03/2022 passed by the District Judge-2, Ahmednagar...
The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of agreement till the date of decree.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed suit for specific performance in trial court along with application for temporary injunction. Trial court rejected injunction. Petitioner appealed to District Court, which confirmed rejection on 28/03/2022. Petitioner then filed writ petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
