Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s Gandhi Builders & Developers, filed a suit for specific performance of a development agreement dated 26-11-2007 with the predecessor of the respondents. The agreement pertained to an open plot for constructing an apartment scheme. The appellant paid Rs.3,00,000 initially and later Rs.2,00,000 on 4-5-2012, but failed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.531 per square foot as per the agreement. The appellant sought interim injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with the property. The trial court refused the injunction, holding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience. The appellant appealed. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, noting that the appellant did not show readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and the balance of convenience was not in his favour. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The plaintiff sought injunction restraining defendant from dealing with property pending suit for specific performance of development agreement - Trial court refused injunction on ground that plaintiff failed to show readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract - Held that the appellate court would not interfere with discretionary order unless it is perverse or arbitrary (Paras 1-10). B) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - In the present case, plaintiff failed to pay balance consideration despite repeated demands and did not show financial capacity - Held that refusal of injunction was justified (Paras 7-10). C) Civil Procedure - Appeal Against Order - Scope of Interference - Section 104, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellate court can interfere with trial court's discretionary order only if it is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or based on wrong principles - Held that no such case was made out (Paras 1, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff during pendency of the suit for specific performance of a development agreement.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the trial court refusing interim injunction is upheld.
Law Points
- Interim injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Specific performance
- Development agreement
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
