Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Claimant in Motor Accident Case — Functional Di...
Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Forgery Case Due to Long Pendency and No Crim...
Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findi...
High Court of Bombay at Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Acc...

HomeJudgement

Scroll Down To Discover

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside Interim Injunction in Property Dispute — Balance of Convenience Favours Owner in Redevelopment Project. The Court held that the High Court erred in granting injunction as the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the appellant-owner.

Admin

2026-07-18 19:26:37

Font size:

Case Details

2025 INSC 663

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2657/2025

2025-01-01

Surya Kant, J.

2025 INSC 663

Tushar Himatlal Jani

Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against interim injunction order in a property dispute

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought setting aside of the High Court order restoring interim injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1

Filing Reason

Appellant aggrieved by the High Court order restraining him from dispossessing Respondent No. 1 from a disputed area of 550 square feet

Previous Decisions

Small Causes Court granted interim injunction on 27.04.2023, confirmed on 10.05.2023; Appellate Small Causes Court set aside the injunction on 20.12.2023; High Court restored the injunction on 30.07.2024

Issues

Whether the High Court was justified in restoring the interim injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the suit

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: Impugned injunction paralyzed redevelopment plans; Respondent No. 1 lacks locus standi as he is neither in lawful nor actual possession; original tenants surrendered tenancy rights. Respondent No. 1: Injunction is simpliciter not to dispossess without due process; rights emanate from Family Settlement Agreement mediated by this Court; surrender letter is forged and illegal.

Ratio Decidendi

An interim injunction requires cumulative satisfaction of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Here, Respondent No. 1 failed to establish a prima facie case as tenancy rights were sub judice; balance of convenience favoured the Appellant as the disputed area was a small fraction of the property and the Appellant had redevelopment plans; and irreparable injury would be caused to the Appellant if the injunction continued.

Judgment Excerpts

The law governing the grant of interim injunction is well-settled. This Court, through a catena of decisions, has consistently held that before granting an interim injunction, the Court must satisfy itself of three essential prerequisites: firstly, the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the applicant evincing a reasonable probability of success at trial; secondly, that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunctive relief; and thirdly, that the applicant would suffer irreparable injury or harm not adequately compensable in damages if the injunction is refused. Applying the principles delineated above to the facts at hand, we are of the considered view that the High Court erred in granting the injunction in favour of Respondent No.1.

Procedural History

Appellant's father leased land to Respondent No. 2 firm in 1972. Appellant terminated lease in 2008 and filed Eviction Suit No. 119/148 of 2008. Respondent No. 1 filed impleadment application, allowed on 06.10.2016, set aside on 03.05.2019. Family Settlement Agreement on 09.06.2021. Respondent No. 2 surrendered tenancy on 19.10.2022. Appellant withdrew eviction suit on 13.01.2023. Respondent No. 1 filed R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023 and obtained interim injunction on 27.04.2023, confirmed on 10.05.2023. Appellate Small Causes Court set aside injunction on 20.12.2023. High Court restored injunction on 30.07.2024. Appellant appealed to Supreme Court.

One-Time Download (₹149 ₹99) Get Subscription

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows State Appeals in Land Acquisition Lapse Case — Period of Interim Stay Must Be Excluded Under Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court held that the High Court erred in not excluding the period of interim stay while ... 2026-07-18 19:26:36

Supreme Court Supreme Court Remands Cross-Objection in Land Acquisition Case for Merits Determination — High Court's Dismissal Without Reasons Set Aside. Cross-Objection Under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC Must Be Decided Independently Even if Main Appeal Is Dismissed. 2026-07-18 19:26:35

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)

Case Details

Nature of Litigation

Remedy Sought

Filing Reason

Previous Decisions

Issues

Submissions/Arguments

Ratio Decidendi

Judgment Excerpts

Procedural History

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findings of Fac...

High Court of Bombay at Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Clai...

Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 fo...

High Court of Karnataka Allows EPF Organisation's Writ Petition for Priority Payment of Pr...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Claimant in Motor Accident Case — Functional Disability A...

Supreme Court Modifies Sentence in Forgery Case Due to Long Pendency and No Criminal Antec...

Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Rajya Sabha Nomination Due ...

Supreme Court Allows Pension to Casual Labourers with Temporary Status in Department of Po...

Supreme Court Directs Eviction of Encroachers and Restoration of Forest Lands in Tamil Nad...