Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed an Appeal from Order filed by the Plaintiffs, setting aside the Trial Court's rejection of their application for temporary injunction. The Plaintiffs had filed a suit for specific performance of agreements dated 10.02.2010 and 26.02.2013 regarding Plot No. 37 in Ulwe, Panvel. Defendant Nos.19 and 20, who had commenced construction on the land, were restrained from further construction or creating third-party interests pending the suit. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had made substantial payments totaling over Rs. 3.12 crores to the Defendants, established a prima facie case through bank statements and documents, and demonstrated that the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss favored granting the injunction. The impugned order was held to be erroneous in not considering the cumulative effect of the agreements and payments.
Headnote
Appeal from Order filed by Original Plaintiffs challenging rejection of Exhibit '5' Application for temporary injunction in Special Civil Suit No. 93 of 2024 -- Suit filed for specific performance of Agreements dated 10.02.2010 and 26.02.2013 -- Impugned order dated 13.06.2025 rejected injunction holding Plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie rights under MOU dated 26.02.2013 -- High Court allowed Appeal, set aside impugned order, granted temporary injunction restraining Defendant Nos.19 and 20 from construction or creating third-party interest -- Held Plaintiffs established prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss -- Principles under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) applied -- Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 considered -- Order VII Rule 11 of CPC referenced -- Status quo order continued
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain Defendant Nos.19 and 20 from carrying out construction on the suit land pending the suit for specific performance
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Appeal from Order, set aside the impugned order dated 13.06.2025, and granted temporary injunction restraining Defendant Nos.19 and 20 from carrying out construction or creating third-party interest in the suit land pending the suit, with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 21
Appeal from Order No. 479 of 2025
Mr. Drupad Patil a/w Ms. Srushti Chalke for Appellants, Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Abhishek Patil and Mr. Sahil Wagh for Respondent Nos.10 and 11
Sunil Narayan Patil and Ors.
Pundalik Balaji Gharat and Ors.
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Civil suit for specific performance of agreements regarding land allotment and transfer
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought specific performance of Agreements dated 10.02.2010 and 26.02.2013, and temporary injunction to restrain Defendant Nos.19 and 20 from construction on the suit land
Filing Reason
Plaintiffs aggrieved by transfer of suit land to Defendant Nos.19 and 20 after they had made substantial payments under agreements, leading to filing of suit and injunction application
Previous Decisions
Trial Court rejected Exhibit '5' Application for temporary injunction on 13.06.2025; High Court admitted Appeal from Order on 22.07.2025 and continued status quo; Writ Petition No. 2374 of 2025 allowed amendment of plaint on 03.04.2025
Issues
Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC
Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable loss favored granting the injunction pending the suit for specific performance
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiffs argued they paid over Rs. 3.12 crores to Defendants under agreements, supported by bank statements, establishing rights to the suit land
Defendant Nos.19 and 20 contended Plaintiffs had no privity of contract with them and MOU dated 26.02.2013 was not executed by Defendant Nos.1 to 16
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case through substantial payments and documents, the balance of convenience favored them as they were in possession of the land, and irreparable loss would occur if construction was allowed; the impugned order erred in not considering the cumulative effect of agreements and payments
Judgment Excerpts
Held that the Plaintiffs have prima facie established their case for grant of temporary injunction
Held that the balance of convenience is in favor of the Plaintiffs and they would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted
Held that the impugned order is erroneous and liable to be set aside
Procedural History
Suit filed on 13.04.2023; Application under Order VII Rule 11 filed by Defendant Nos.19 and 20 on 24.10.2024; Exhibit '5' Application for injunction filed and rejected on 13.06.2025; Appeal from Order filed and admitted on 22.07.2025; Writ Petition No. 2374 of 2025 allowed amendment on 03.04.2025; Appeal heard finally on 03.02.2026
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
