Case Note & Summary
The appellant, the unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, filed an appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, refusing to grant a temporary injunction. The High Court of Bombay at Goa heard the appeal. Upon hearing both parties, the court observed that the trial was already at the stage of evidence and that adjudicating the appeal on merits would serve no fruitful purpose. Instead, the court directed the trial court to complete the hearing of the suit within two months from the date of the order and to dispose of the suit on merits according to law. In the meantime, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the suit property. The order was passed without prejudice to the rights and liabilities of either party, and all contentions were left open. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Specific Performance - Appeal against refusal of temporary injunction - Court declined to adjudicate appeal on merits as trial evidence was already proceeding - Directed trial court to complete hearing within two months and maintain status quo - Held that no fruitful purpose would be served by deciding the appeal on merits (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal against refusal of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance should be adjudicated on merits when trial is already proceeding.
Final Decision
The appeal is disposed of with direction to the trial court to complete hearing of the suit within two months and dispose of on merits. Parties to maintain status quo as on today regarding suit property. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- Specific performance
- Status quo
- Expedited trial
- Disposal of appeal without merits
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 113
Appeal from Order No. 56 of 2001
Shri R.V. Kamat with Shri Ranjit Satardekar for Appellant; Shri M.B. D'Costa, Sr. Advocate with Shri J.A. Lobo for Respondents No. 1 to 6
Shri Inacio Albano Lourenco
Smt. Jeremia Sequeira Vaz, Mrs. Joan Crasto, Capt. Rosalyn Crasto, Mr. Charles Siqueira Vaz, Mrs. Joyce Siqueira Vaz, Shri Lloyd Sequeira Vaz
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order refusing temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the order refusing temporary injunction and to obtain interim protection pending suit.
Filing Reason
The appellant was unsuccessful in obtaining a temporary injunction from the trial court in his suit for specific performance.
Previous Decisions
The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji refused to pass temporary injunction.
Issues
Whether the appeal against refusal of temporary injunction should be adjudicated on merits when trial is already proceeding.
Submissions/Arguments
Not mentioned in detail; parties were heard.
Ratio Decidendi
When trial evidence is already proceeding, no fruitful purpose is served by adjudicating an appeal against refusal of temporary injunction; instead, the trial should be expedited and status quo maintained.
Judgment Excerpts
After hearing the parties for sometime, it is revealed that the stage of evidence is proceeding in the trial itself and, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by adjudicating this appeal on merits.
Under the circumstances, it is hereby directed that the hearing of the suit shall be completed by the trial Court within a period of 2 months from the date of this order and the suit shall be disposed of on merits according to law.
In the meantime, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today with regard to the suit property.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a suit for specific performance before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, and sought a temporary injunction, which was refused. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
