Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two appeals filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against an order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, in Special Suit No. 493 of 2017. The appellants, QED Properties Private Limited and M/s. Regent Bhairavi Corporation, had filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (MSRDC) and others, from selling, transferring, or alienating Plot A and Plot C (the suit plots). Along with the suit, they filed an application for temporary injunction (Exhibit 5) which was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeals. The facts reveal that the appellants claimed rights over the suit plots based on a development agreement allegedly entered into with the respondent. However, the agreement was not registered and the appellants were not in possession of the property. The trial court found that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the trial court's order, noting that the appellants had not taken any steps to enforce the agreement and the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation. The court also observed that the respondent, being a government corporation, was a responsible entity and no irreparable loss would be caused to the appellants. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The appellants sought to restrain the respondent from dealing with the suit plots claiming rights under a development agreement. The court held that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case as the agreement was not registered and the appellants were not in possession. (Paras 1-10) B) Contract Law - Development Agreement - Specific Performance - Section 54 Transfer of Property Act - The agreement relied upon by the appellants was not registered and did not create any interest in the property. The court noted that the appellants had not taken any steps to enforce the agreement and the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation. (Paras 11-15) C) Property Law - Possession - Injunction - The appellants claimed possession but the court found that the possession was not established. The balance of convenience was in favor of the respondent, a government corporation, and no irreparable loss would be caused to the appellants. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants have made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from selling, transferring, or alienating the suit plots.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel in Special Suit No. 493 of 2017 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- temporary injunction
- Section 96 CPC
