Case Note & Summary
The appellant-original plaintiff, Azeem Jagani, filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (Behram Tejani and others) from dispossessing him from the suit premises without following due process of law. He also sought appointment of a court commissioner and interim protection. The cause of action arose in 2013 when defendant nos. 1 and 2 allegedly threatened to prevent him from entering the premises. The plaintiff lodged a criminal complaint on 3 February 2013 and filed the suit on 4 February 2013. The trial court dismissed the interim motion on 29 April 2013, holding that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience did not lie in his favour, nor would irreparable loss be caused. The plaintiff appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the suit was not about ownership or title but about protection of possession. The plaintiff had been residing in the premises since at least 2007 with his maternal grandmother, Mrs. Noorbanoo Mohammed Ali Tejani, who was not a party. The defendants were aware of his possession. The plaintiff produced supporting documents including a ration card dated 30 January 2008, a bank account opened on 22 October 2008, and a driving licence issued on 1 March 2007, all showing the suit premises as his address. The court held that these documents could not be overlooked and established a prima facie case of possession. The threat notice and police complaint further indicated the defendants' awareness. The court found that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff, as he would suffer irreparable loss if dispossessed without due process, while the defendants could seek eviction through legal remedies. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and granted the injunction in terms of prayer clause (a) of the motion, restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff without due process of law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Protection of Possession - The appellant-plaintiff sought injunction against dispossession from suit premises where he resided with his maternal grandmother since 2007. The trial court dismissed the motion holding no prima facie case. The High Court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's long possession supported by documents (ration card, bank account, driving licence) and the defendants' threat notice and police complaint established a prima facie case for protection of possession, without deciding title. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Loss - The court found that balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff, as he would suffer irreparable loss if dispossessed without due process, whereas the defendants could seek eviction through legal remedies. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-plaintiff made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from dispossessing him from the suit premises without due process of law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order dated 29.4.2013 passed by the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, is set aside. The motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellant from the suit premises without following due process of law.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- temporary injunction
- possession without title
- protection of possession
- due process of law
