Case Note & Summary
The respondents-plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 102/2020 seeking cancellation of registered sale deeds, perpetual injunction, and alternatively recovery of Rs. 3,57,50,073/-. The trial court, vide order dated 11th February 2021, restrained the appellants-defendants from creating third party rights in the suit properties. The appellants challenged this interim order. The High Court held that the trial court had erred in granting the injunction solely based on a consent order passed in a previous suit (Special Civil Suit No. 101/2020). The consent order did not create an estoppel against the defendants in the present suit, as the reliefs sought were different. The court emphasized that for an interim injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, which the trial court had not properly assessed. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to decide the injunction application afresh on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The trial court erred in granting injunction solely based on a consent order in a previous suit, as the consent order did not create an estoppel against the defendants in the subsequent suit for cancellation of sale deeds. The court must independently assess prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. (Paras 1-10)
B) Estoppel - Consent Order - A consent order in a previous suit does not operate as estoppel or res judicata in a subsequent suit involving different reliefs and parties. The defendants are not precluded from contesting the plaintiffs' claims. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party rights in the suit properties based on a consent order passed in a previous suit.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order dated 11th February 2021 set aside. Trial court directed to decide the injunction application afresh on merits without being influenced by the consent order.
Law Points
- Consent order does not create estoppel
- Interim injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 54
Appeal from Order No. 422/2021 alongwith Interim Application No. 3270/2021
Senior Advocate Mr. Anil Anturkar alongwith Tushar Sonawane a/w Ranjeet Shinde, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. R.D. Soni alongwith V.R. Kasle i/by Ram and Co., Advocate for Respondents.
Santosh Dnyanoba Gawade and Others
Prakash Nensukh Navlakha and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for cancellation of registered sale deeds, perpetual injunction, and alternatively recovery of money.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of the interim injunction order restraining them from creating third party rights in suit properties.
Filing Reason
The trial court granted an interim injunction based on a consent order in a previous suit, which the appellants contended was erroneous.
Previous Decisions
Trial court order dated 11th February 2021 granting interim injunction.
Issues
Whether the consent order in a previous suit creates an estoppel against the defendants in the present suit.
Whether the trial court properly assessed prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss before granting interim injunction.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the consent order in the previous suit does not operate as estoppel and the trial court erred in relying on it.
Respondents supported the trial court's order, contending that the consent order was binding.
Ratio Decidendi
A consent order in a previous suit does not create an estoppel against a party in a subsequent suit for different reliefs. For granting interim injunction, the court must independently assess prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court erred in granting injunction solely based on a consent order in a previous suit, as the consent order did not create an estoppel against the defendants in the subsequent suit for cancellation of sale deeds.
The court must independently assess prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
Procedural History
Respondents filed Special Civil Suit No. 102/2020. Trial court granted interim injunction on 11th February 2021. Appellants filed Appeal from Order No. 422/2021 challenging the injunction. High Court allowed the appeal on 7th April 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
