Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed Special Civil Suit No.660 of 2014 against the respondents seeking (i) direction to the bank (defendant no.2) to handover chain of documents of title of the suit flat mortgaged by defendant no.1, (ii) recovery of Rs.3,24,706/- paid in excess of consideration, and (iii) compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment. Pending suit, they filed an application under Section 151 CPC for interim direction to the bank to return the title documents. The trial court rejected this application on 31st October 2015, leading to the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The facts show that respondent no.1 executed an agreement for sale on 11th February 2014 agreeing to sell flat no.303 in Neelkanth Greens, Thane to the petitioners. The agreement was not registered. The petitioners paid part consideration but were not put in possession. The suit flat was mortgaged by respondent no.1 to the bank. The trial court held that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case for interim relief as the agreement was unregistered and possession was not delivered. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the trial court's discretion was exercised judiciously and no interference was warranted under Article 227. The court observed that the petitioners' claim for return of documents was essentially a final relief and could not be granted at an interim stage without a strong prima facie case. The balance of convenience was not in favor of the petitioners as the bank held the documents as security. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Relief - Prima Facie Case - Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Petitioners sought direction to bank to return title documents of suit flat pending suit for specific performance and damages - Trial court rejected application holding no prima facie case as agreement for sale was not registered and petitioners were not put in possession - High Court upheld rejection, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in exercise of discretion under Article 227 (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners' application for interim direction to the bank to handover title documents of the suit flat pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the interim application.
Law Points
- Interim relief
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- Section 151 CPC
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 141
Writ Petition No.430 of 2016
Dr. D.S. Hatle with Mr. Jamsandekar Deepak Pundlik for the Petitioners; Mr. Shanay Shah with Ms. Huzefa Khokhawala with Ms. Gauri Menon I/by Nankani Associates for Respondent No.1; Mr. O.A.Das for Respondent No.2
Shri Sujan Bhabani Prasad Chatterjee and Mrs. Dipanwita Sujan Chatterjee
Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh and The Senior Manager, Bank of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order rejecting an application for interim relief in a pending suit for specific performance and damages.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought direction to the bank to handover title documents of the suit flat and recovery of excess amount paid and compensation.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the petitioners' application for interim direction to the bank to return title documents of the suit flat.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected the application on 31st October 2015.
Issues
Whether the trial court's rejection of the interim application was perverse or suffered from jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they had a strong prima facie case and the trial court erred in rejecting the application.
Respondents contended that the trial court's discretion was judiciously exercised and no interference was called for.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's discretion in refusing interim relief was not perverse or arbitrary; the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case for return of title documents at an interim stage, especially when the agreement was unregistered and possession was not delivered.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Judge rejected the said application on 31st October, 2015 against which this writ petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The trial court held that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case for interim relief as the agreement was unregistered and possession was not delivered.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Special Civil Suit No.660 of 2014 in the trial court. Pending suit, they filed an application under Section 151 CPC for interim direction. The trial court rejected the application on 31st October 2015. Petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the writ petition on 18th July 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 151
- Constitution of India: Article 227
