Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Refusal of Temporary Injunction in Suit for Specific Performance — Restrains Defendant from Creating Third Party Interest Pending Suit. Part Payment of Rs.10 Lacs Out of Rs.19 Lacs Consideration Under Agreement to Sell Warrants Protection of Property from Alienation Under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 132
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant (plaintiff) filed Special Civil Suit No.10 of 2014 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell a property for a consideration of Rs.19.00 Lacs, out of which Rs.10.00 Lacs had already been paid. The plaintiff apprehended that the defendant was likely to create third party interest in the suit property, defeating the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from selling, transferring, mortgaging, or creating any third party interest in the suit property till the final decision of the suit. The trial court refused the injunction. Aggrieved, the plaintiff appealed. The High Court held that the apprehension of the defendant creating third party interest, coupled with the fact that a substantial amount of Rs.10.00 Lacs had been paid out of the total consideration of Rs.19.00 Lacs, constituted sufficient grounds for granting temporary injunction. The court observed that the trial court should have protected the property from changing hands pending disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and restrained the defendant from creating third party interest or alienating the suit property in any manner till the decision of the suit. The parties were directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal of the suit, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible. No order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Grant of Injunction - Where substantial part of consideration has been paid under an agreement to sell and there is apprehension of the defendant creating third party interest, the trial court ought to protect the property from alienation pending suit - Held that the refusal of injunction was erroneous and the defendant must be restrained from creating third party interest or alienating the suit property till decision of the suit (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property pending disposal of the suit, given the plaintiff's part payment and apprehension of third party interest.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order refusing temporary injunction is set aside. The defendant is restrained from creating third party interest or alienating the suit property in any manner till the decision of the suit. The parties shall cooperate for expeditious disposal, and the trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Temporary injunction
  • Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
  • Section 151 CPC
  • Prima facie case
  • Balance of convenience
  • Irreparable injury
  • Agreement to sell
  • Part payment
  • Apprehension of alienation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 189

Appeal Against Order No.121 of 2014

2015-07-01

A.P. Bhangale, J.

Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar for the Appellant, Shri P.A. Gode for the Respondent

Milind S/o Madhusudan Alsundekar

Ajay S/o Prabhakar Rawat

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against refusal of temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property.

Remedy Sought

The appellant (plaintiff) sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondent (defendant) from selling, transferring, mortgaging, or creating any third party interest in the suit property pending disposal of the suit.

Filing Reason

The appellant had paid Rs.10.00 Lacs out of the total consideration of Rs.19.00 Lacs under an agreement to sell, and apprehended that the respondent was likely to create third party interest to defeat the appellant's claim.

Previous Decisions

The trial court refused the temporary injunction application, leading to the present appeal.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC when the plaintiff had made substantial part payment and had a bona fide apprehension of alienation.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that substantial amount of Rs.10.00 Lacs had been paid out of Rs.19.00 Lacs consideration, and the defendant was likely to create third party interest, warranting protection of the property. The respondent opposed the injunction, but the judgment does not detail the respondent's specific arguments.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a plaintiff has paid a substantial part of the consideration under an agreement to sell and has a genuine apprehension that the defendant may alienate the property to third parties, the court should grant a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from creating third party interest or alienating the property pending disposal of the suit, to protect the plaintiff's interest and prevent the suit from becoming infructuous.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff has apprehension that the defendant is likely to create third party interest so as to defeat the claim of the plaintiff in the pending suit. When such averments are made before the trial Court, the trial Court should have protected the property from changing its hands by the defendant pending disposal of the suit. The defendant could have been restrained from creating third party interest till trial Court decides the suit on merits.

Procedural History

The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.10 of 2014 for specific performance. An application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was filed, which was refused by the trial court. The appellant then filed the present appeal against that refusal.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Section 151
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Allows Revision Application of Foreign Consulate in Rent Dispute — Section 86 CPC Bar on Suits Against Foreign States Upheld. Consulate General of Czech Republic held immune from suit for declaration of tenancy under Maharashtr...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Refusal of Temporary Injunction in Suit for Specific Performance — Restrains Defendant from Creating Third Party Interest Pending Suit. Part Payment of Rs.10 Lacs Out of Rs.19 Lacs Consideration Under Agreeme...