Bombay High Court Dismisses Notice of Motion for Interim Relief in Specific Performance Suit Due to Non-Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. Plaintiffs Failed to Make Out Prima Facie Case for Appointment of Receiver or Injunction.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 90
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiffs, M/s. Pride Associates and others, filed a suit for specific performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 4th June 2005 for a property in Andheri East, Mumbai. They also took out a Notice of Motion seeking appointment of a Court Receiver and interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the property. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to file an affidavit in support of the application as required under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. The court also found that the plaintiffs did not make out a prima facie case because the agreement was executed by only some of the co-owners and there were disputes regarding title and possession. The balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiffs, and no irreparable loss was shown. Consequently, the Notice of Motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC - Non-Compliance - The plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC to file an affidavit in support of the application for temporary injunction, leading to dismissal of the Notice of Motion. (Para 6)

B) Specific Performance - Prima Facie Case - Agreement for Sale - The plaintiffs did not make out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief as the suit agreement was executed by only some of the co-owners and there were disputes regarding title and possession. (Paras 7-8)

C) Civil Procedure - Appointment of Receiver - The court declined to appoint a receiver as the plaintiffs failed to show any urgency or risk of alienation that could not be compensated by damages. (Para 9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to appointment of a Court Receiver and interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property pending disposal of the suit for specific performance.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Notice of Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • Agreement for sale
  • Prima facie case
  • Balance of convenience
  • Irreparable loss
  • Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC
  • Appointment of receiver
  • Interim injunction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (07) 115

Notice of Motion (L) No. 965 of 2012 in Suit No. 2454 of 2012

2013-07-26

S. J. Kathawalla

Mr. Ankit Lohia, instructed by Smt. Nilam Santosh Pawar, for the Plaintiffs; Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate, instructed by M/s. Divya Shah Associates, for Defendant Nos. 1 to 6; Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Jayesh R. Vyas, for Defendant Nos. 9 to 11

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property with an application for interim relief.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs sought appointment of a Court Receiver and interim injunction restraining defendants from dealing with the suit property.

Filing Reason

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to perform the agreement for sale dated 4th June 2005.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to appointment of a Court Receiver? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the suit property?

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that they have a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favor. Defendants opposed the motion, contending that the plaintiffs failed to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and did not make out a prima facie case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC to file an affidavit in support of the application for temporary injunction. Additionally, the plaintiffs did not make out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief as the suit agreement was executed by only some of the co-owners and there were disputes regarding title and possession. The balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiffs, and no irreparable loss was shown.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiffs have not filed any affidavit in support of the application for temporary injunction as required under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case for grant of any interim relief.

Procedural History

The suit was filed in 2012. The Notice of Motion was taken out for interim relief. The court reserved order on 29th January 2013 and pronounced on 26th July 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rule 3
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Notice of Motion for Interim Relief in Specific Performance Suit Due to Non-Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. Plaintiffs Failed to Make Out Prima Facie Case for Appointment of Receiver or Injunction.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Insurance Claim for Deceased Doctor Under PMGKY Scheme — Requisition of Services for COVID-19 Duties Not Required to Be Formal. The court held that deployment in a COVID-19 hospital and death due to COVID-19 constitute sufficie...