Case Note & Summary
The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land dated 18.10.2000, modified on 27.2.2007, for a total consideration of Rs.50,000 per acre. He paid earnest money of Rs.75,000 in installments. The defendant/vendor sold the same land to the second respondent for Rs.32,40,000 on 14.3.2008. The plaintiff obtained a decree in RCS No.587 of 2008 declaring his right to purchase the property and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.153 of 2012 seeking specific performance. The trial court initially granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, but later revised it on 8.11.2012, vacating the status quo and allowing the second respondent to alienate the property. The appellant challenged this revision. The High Court held that the trial court erred in revising the interim order without considering the plaintiff's prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The court restored the status quo ante, directing that the suit property shall not be alienated or transferred during the pendency of the suit, and allowed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Revision of Interim Order - The trial court's revision of an interim injunction order, vacating the status quo and permitting the subsequent purchaser to alienate the property, was set aside as it failed to consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in favour of the agreement holder. The appellate court restored the status quo ante to protect the subject matter of the suit pending final adjudication. (Paras 1-5)
B) Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Protection of Suit Property - In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, the plaintiff has a right to protect the suit property from alienation by the vendor or subsequent purchasers. The court must ensure that the property is not transferred during the pendency of the suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to preserve the rights of the agreement holder. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in revising the interim injunction order and vacating the status quo granted earlier, thereby allowing the subsequent purchaser to alienate the suit property despite the pendency of a suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.11.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No.153 of 2012 is set aside. The status quo ante is restored, and the suit property shall not be alienated or transferred during the pendency of the suit.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- interim injunction
- revision of interim order
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 188
Appeal Against Order No.69 of 2014
Shri S.G. Bhagat for Appellant, None for R1, Shri U.P. Dable for R2
Mr. Arif S/o Haji Ismail Negani
Mr. Motiram S/o Daryav Kodse and Mr. Neelkanth S/o Shyamrao Koram
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against revision of interim injunction order in a suit for specific performance of contract.
Remedy Sought
The appellant/plaintiff sought restoration of the interim injunction order and status quo ante to prevent alienation of the suit property.
Filing Reason
The trial court revised its earlier interim injunction order, vacating the status quo and allowing the subsequent purchaser to alienate the property, which the appellant contended was erroneous.
Previous Decisions
The trial court initially granted an interim injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, but later revised it on 8.11.2012, vacating the status quo. The appellant challenged this revision in the present appeal.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in revising the interim injunction order and vacating the status quo granted earlier.
Whether the appellant/plaintiff had a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in his favour to warrant continuation of the interim injunction.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant/plaintiff argued that he had a valid agreement to sell and had paid earnest money, and the subsequent sale to the second respondent was during the pendency of the suit, thus the property should be protected from alienation.
The respondents did not appear or contest the appeal effectively.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has a right to protect the suit property from alienation by the vendor or subsequent purchasers. The court must consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss before revising an interim injunction order. The trial court erred in vacating the status quo without such consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal is preferred against the revision of interim injunction passed on 8.11.2012, by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, in Special Civil Suit No.153 of 2012.
It appears that the appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of contract dated 18.10.2000 and modified on 27.2.2007.
It is his grievance of the appellant/plaintiff that defendant Motiram Kodse sold the same land in favour of Shri Neelkanth Koram for sum of Rs.32,40,000 under sale deed dated 14.3.2008.
Procedural History
The appellant/plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.153 of 2012 for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The trial court initially granted an interim injunction, but later revised it on 8.11.2012, vacating the status quo. The appellant filed the present appeal against that revision order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
