Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal from order filed by the original defendants (appellants) challenging an injunction granted by the Senior Civil Judge, Mapusa, restraining them from undertaking any construction or creating third party rights in the suit plot. The respondents no.1 to 3 are the original plaintiffs, and respondent no.4 is the original defendant no.3 who did not participate. The appellants argued that the Trial Court failed to consider the cardinal principles for grant of injunction: prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. Specifically, the Trial Court did not consider the Agreement dated 7.12.1990 entered into between the appellants, respondent no.1, and her deceased father with respondent no.4. The appellants also contended that the application was hit by delay and laches. The High Court, after hearing the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, found that the impugned order did not consider the agreement and the delay, and thus set aside the injunction order, allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Injunction - Prima Facie Case, Irreparable Injury, Balance of Convenience - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - The Trial Court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from constructing on the suit plot without considering the Agreement dated 7.12.1990 entered into between the parties and without applying the settled principles for grant of temporary injunction. The appellate court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it failed to consider the agreement and the delay in filing the suit. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in granting an injunction without considering the Agreement dated 7.12.1990 and the principles of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, and whether the application was barred by delay and laches.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mapusa, is set aside. The injunction granted against the defendants is vacated.
Law Points
- prima facie case
- irreparable injury
- balance of convenience
- delay and laches
- agreement for sale
- injunction principles
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (09) 100
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 21/2012
Shri J.E.Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Shri V. Korgaonkar for the Appellants; Ms. Asha Desai for the respondents no.2 and 3
Dr. Meenacshi Philomena Martins e Shukla and Shri Anurag B. Shukla
Dr. Bina Martins, Miss Esmina Martins, Miss Elizabeth Martins, and Mr. Nitin Balaji Virjinkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal from order challenging an injunction granted by the Trial Court restraining construction on a suit plot.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (original defendants) sought to set aside the injunction order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mapusa.
Filing Reason
The appellants contended that the Trial Court failed to consider the Agreement dated 7.12.1990 and the principles for grant of injunction, and that the application was barred by delay and laches.
Previous Decisions
The Senior Civil Judge, Mapusa, granted an injunction restraining the defendants from undertaking any construction or creating third party rights in the suit plot till further orders.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in granting the injunction without considering the Agreement dated 7.12.1990?
Whether the application for injunction was barred by delay and laches?
Submissions/Arguments
The learned Senior Advocate for the appellants submitted that the impugned order did not consider the cardinal principles of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.
The Trial Court failed to consider the Agreement dated 7.12.1990 entered into between the appellants, respondent no.1, and her deceased father with respondent no.4.
The application was hit by delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi
The Trial Court must consider the agreement between the parties and the principles of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience before granting an injunction. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an appeal at the instance of the original defendants challenging the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mapusa, pursuant to which he granted the injunction and restrained the defendants from undertaking any construction in the suit plot and creating third party rights therein till further orders.
The learned Trial Judge had not considered the Agreement dated 7.12.1990 entered into between the appellants and the respondent no.1 and her deceased father with the respondent no.4.
Procedural History
The original plaintiffs (respondents no.1-3) filed a suit seeking injunction against the defendants (appellants and respondent no.4). The Trial Court granted an interim injunction. The defendants appealed to the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
