Bombay High Court Dismisses Interim Injunction Application in Specific Performance Suit — Plaintiff Fails to Establish Possession and Prima Facie Case. Balance of convenience favors defendant as property stands in defendant's name and no irreparable loss shown.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 158
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present matter is an interim application in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff, Shishir Balkrishna Nevatia, filed the suit against his brother Dileep Balkrishna Nevatia and others, claiming that the defendant agreed to sell a property to him and that he was put in possession. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from selling, alienating, or creating third-party rights over the suit property. The defendant opposed the application, denying the agreement and possession. The court examined the documents on record, including the agreement to sell and correspondence. It noted that the plaintiff's claim of possession was not supported by independent evidence and that the defendant had denied the same. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. The balance of convenience was found to be in favor of the defendant, as the property was in the defendant's name and the plaintiff had not shown any irreparable loss. The court dismissed the interim application, directing the defendant to maintain accounts of any transactions concerning the property.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sections 36, 37, 38 - Plaintiff sought interim injunction to restrain defendant from selling or alienating suit property - Court found that plaintiff failed to establish possession and that balance of convenience was in favor of defendant - Held that no interim injunction can be granted as plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case (Paras 1-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the suit property pending disposal of the suit for specific performance.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The interim application is dismissed. The defendant is directed to maintain accounts of any transactions concerning the suit property.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • Interim injunction
  • Balance of convenience
  • Prima facie case
  • Irreparable loss
  • Possession
  • Agreement to sell
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (04) 39

Interim Application (L) No. 32712 of 2023 in Suit No. 630 of 2015

0000-00-00

Mr. Rohan Sawant with Mr. Gourav Shetye i/b M/s Bali Associates for the Plaintiffs; Mr. Dileep Nevatia, Defendant Nos.1 and 4 – party-in-person; Mr. Ranjan Solanki a/w Mr. Santosh Jadhav i/b Not mentioned

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

Nature of Litigation

Interim application in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell and for permanent injunction.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff seeks interim injunction restraining defendant from selling, alienating, or creating third-party rights over the suit property.

Filing Reason

Plaintiff claims that defendant agreed to sell suit property to him and put him in possession, but defendant is attempting to sell the property to third parties.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant. Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if interim injunction is not granted.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff argued that he was put in possession of the suit property pursuant to the agreement to sell and that the defendant is trying to sell the property to third parties. Defendant denied the agreement and possession, stating that the plaintiff has no right over the property.

Ratio Decidendi

For grant of interim injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor, and irreparable loss. In this case, the plaintiff failed to establish possession and a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendant.

Judgment Excerpts

The plaintiff has failed to establish that he is in possession of the suit property. The balance of convenience is in favor of the defendant.

Procedural History

The suit was filed in 2015. The present interim application was filed in 2023 seeking interim injunction. The court heard the application and dismissed it.

Acts & Sections

  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: 36, 37, 38
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Property Dispute Involving Life Interest and Lease Validity. Life Estate Holder Cannot Create Lease Beyond Lifetime; Lease Void Against Reversioners.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Pension Benefits by Counting Prior Service with Board Under Rule 46(2) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 — Resignation to Take Up Another Appointment with Permission Does Not Forfeit Past Service