Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Injunction in Property Dispute Over Passage and Gate. Trial Court Failed to Consider Leave Application Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Before Granting Interim Relief.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 17
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arises from a suit filed by Respondents 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) against the appellant (defendant No.1) and the Municipal Corporation (defendant No.2) seeking permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from covering a passage and opening a gate. The plaintiffs also sought leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to file the suit without including certain reliefs. The trial court, by judgment and order dated December 21, 2004, granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs without first adjudicating the leave application. The appellant challenged this order. The High Court noted that the trial court had not considered the leave application under Order II Rule 2 CPC, which was a preliminary issue affecting the maintainability of the suit. The court held that the trial court ought to have decided the leave application before granting any interim relief. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the notice of motion after deciding the leave application. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to appear before the trial court on August 21, 2006.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Leave to sue under Order II Rule 2 CPC - Necessity of leave when part of cause of action omitted - The plaintiffs sought leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC to file the suit without including certain reliefs, but the trial court granted interim injunction without deciding the leave application - Held that the court must first consider the leave application before granting any interim relief, as the maintainability of the suit depends on it (Paras 4-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in granting interim injunction restraining the appellant from covering the suit passage and opening the suit gate without considering the requirement of leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated December 21, 2004 set aside. Notice of Motion No.4502 of 2004 restored to file of trial court for fresh disposal after deciding the leave application under Order II Rule 2 CPC. Parties to appear before trial court on August 21, 2006. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Order II Rule 2 CPC
  • Leave to sue
  • Permanent injunction
  • Property rights
  • Passage and gate dispute
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (07) 24

Appeal from Order No.261 of 2005 in Notice of Motion No.4502 of 2004 in Suit No.5289 of 2004

2006-07-25

A.M. Khanwilkar

Mr. C.U. Singh with Mr. Girish Kulkarni & Mr. H. Rahman i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for Appellant; Mrs. Uma C. Wagle for Respondents 1 to 4; Mrs. Geeta Joglekar for Respondent No.5

Shatrughan Sinha

Gurudev Singh Mann, Rajiv Salkar, Vijay I. Madhrani, Prakash C. Silaichia, Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant from covering a passage and opening a gate, with a prayer for leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against defendant No.1 and leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

Filing Reason

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant No.1 was covering a passage and opening a gate, causing obstruction to their property rights.

Previous Decisions

Trial court granted interim injunction in favor of plaintiffs on December 21, 2004, without deciding the leave application.

Issues

Whether the trial court could grant interim injunction without first deciding the leave application under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the trial court ought to have decided the leave application before granting any interim relief. Respondents supported the trial court's order.

Ratio Decidendi

A court must first decide an application for leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC before granting any interim relief, as the maintainability of the suit depends on such leave.

Judgment Excerpts

The trial court ought to have first decided the leave application under Order II Rule 2 CPC before granting any interim relief.

Procedural History

Suit No.5289 of 2004 filed by plaintiffs. Notice of Motion No.4502 of 2004 for interim injunction. Trial court granted interim injunction on December 21, 2004. Appellant filed Appeal from Order No.261 of 2005. High Court allowed appeal on July 25, 2006.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order II Rule 2
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Injunction in Property Dispute Over Passage and Gate. Trial Court Failed to Consider Leave Application Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Before Granting Interim Relief.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Considers Consolidation of Sureties for Multiple Bail Orders Across Different States. Balancing Fundamental Rights and Judicial Requirements in Bail Proceedings.