Case Note & Summary
The appellants, who were defendants in a suit filed by respondent nos.1 to 5, challenged an order dated 11th July 2003 passed by the trial court allowing an application for temporary injunction at Exh.5. The suit was filed by respondent nos.1 to 5 seeking a declaration that a sale deed dated 24th October 2002 executed by appellant nos.1 to 8 in favour of respondent no.6 was not binding on them, and for consequential reliefs including injunction. The trial court restrained the appellants from obstructing the common possession and enjoyment of the suit properties described in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the plaint, from demolishing the structure standing on the suit property, from developing the suit property, and from creating third party interests. The appellants contended that the impugned order was erroneous and that they had a better title. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, found that the trial court had considered the material on record and recorded findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The High Court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The trial court granted injunction restraining appellants from obstructing respondents' common possession and enjoyment of suit property, from demolishing structures, and from creating third party interests - Held that the appellants failed to show any perversity or illegality in the impugned order, and the trial court's findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss were based on proper appreciation of material on record (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting temporary injunction restraining the appellants from obstructing the common possession and enjoyment of the suit property and from demolishing structures or creating third party interests.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 11th July 2003 passed by the trial court is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- lis pendens
- common property
- obstruction
- demolition
- development
- third party interest
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 23
Appeal From Order No. 655 of 2003
Shri Mohan Pungaliya for the Appellants, Shri R.G.Ketkar for Respondent Nos.1 to 5, Shri R.A.More for Respondent No.6
Shri Madhavrao Maruti Bhapkar, Sou. Sushila Madhav Bhapkar, Shri Sandeep Madhav Bhapkar, Sou. Vijaya Milind Patole, Sou Alka Vijay Pole, Sou. Asha Anil Pilane, Sou. Smita Anil Bhosale, Sou Anjali Uday Punde, Sou.Pratibha Bhagwanrao Bhargude
Leelabai Shankarrao Bhapkar, Shri Sachin Shankarrao Bhapkar, Deepali Shankarrao Bhapkar, Shri Jatin Shankarrao Bhapkar, Sou. Smita Bharat Jadhav, Sou. Vaishali Shankarrao Bhapkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal from order granting temporary injunction in a property suit.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the trial court's order granting temporary injunction restraining them from obstructing common possession and enjoyment of suit property, demolishing structures, developing the property, and creating third party interests.
Filing Reason
The appellants challenged the trial court's order dated 11th July 2003 allowing the respondents' application for temporary injunction.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the application for temporary injunction at Exh.5 on 11th July 2003.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order granting temporary injunction was perverse or illegal.
Whether the appellants made out a case for interference in appeal.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the impugned order was erroneous and that they had a better title.
The respondents supported the impugned order and contended that the trial court had correctly appreciated the material on record.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's findings on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss were based on proper appreciation of material on record. The appellants failed to demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference in appeal.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellants have taken exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 11th July, 2003 passed by learned trial Judge by which an application for temporary injunction at Exh.5 made by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 has been allowed.
The Appellants have been restrained from obstructing the common possession of Respondent Nos.1 to 5/ plaintiffs over the suit properties described in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the plaint and also from obstructing Respondent Nos.1 to 5 from common enjoyment thereof.
The Appellants have failed to show that the impugned order suffers from any perversity or illegality. Hence, no case for interference is made out.
Procedural History
The respondent nos.1 to 5 filed a suit against the appellants and respondent no.6 seeking declaration and injunction. The trial court allowed an application for temporary injunction at Exh.5 on 11th July 2003. The appellants filed an appeal from order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
