Case Note & Summary
The case involves four miscellaneous first appeals filed by the appellants, Mohamed Umar Seeni Ariff Khan and Mrs. Mumtaj Seeni Ariff Khan, against the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 7645/2023. The trial court allowed I.A. No. 2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondent's possession of the suit property. The respondent, Mrs. Tanzia Bano alias Tanzia Banu, represented by her SPA holder Mr. Waseem Pasha, filed the suit seeking permanent injunction. The appellants contended that the trial court erred in granting the injunction without proper appreciation of facts and documents. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court had correctly assessed the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in favor of the respondent. The court noted that the appellate court's scope under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC is limited and it would not interfere with a discretionary order unless it is perverse. The appeals were dismissed, and the interim order granted by the trial court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The trial court granted interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondent's possession of the suit property. The appellate court held that the trial court had correctly assessed the prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff based on the documents on record. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The appellate court found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the respondent/plaintiff, as the appellants had not established a stronger claim over the property. The court noted that the respondent was in possession and any interference would cause irreparable injury. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court's Scope - Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - The appellate court reiterated that it would not interfere with the trial court's discretionary order unless it was perverse or based on no evidence. The court found no such perversity in the impugned order. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's order granting interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was justified based on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Final Decision
All four miscellaneous first appeals are dismissed. The order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 7645/2023 allowing I.A. No. 2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- interim injunction
- appellate court's limited scope
