Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from an order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, allowing I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in O.S. No. 1749/2024. The suit was filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.06.2023 executed by the appellants (defendants) in respect of a property situated at Balagatta Village, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. The plaintiffs alleged that they had paid a substantial advance amount and were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the defendants were attempting to alienate the property to third parties. The trial court, after hearing both sides, granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the suit property until further orders. Aggrieved by this order, the defendants filed the present miscellaneous first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 CPC. The High Court, after examining the material on record and hearing the learned counsel for both parties, held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the facts and law. The court noted that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in their favor, and they would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. The court further observed that the trial court's order was neither perverse nor arbitrary and did not warrant interference in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the impugned order was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The court examined whether the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. Held that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case based on the existence of an agreement and part payment of consideration. (Paras 10-15) B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The court considered the balance of convenience between the parties. Held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs as the property was likely to be alienated during the pendency of the suit, causing irreparable injury. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Irreparable Injury - The court assessed whether the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted. Held that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury as the suit property was the subject matter of the agreement and any alienation would frustrate the suit. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs/respondents restraining the defendants/appellants from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property pending disposal of the suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, allowing I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 1749/2024.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Injury
- Specific Performance of Contract
- Temporary Injunction
