Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., filed a miscellaneous first appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the order dated 28.04.2018 passed by the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-21) in O.S.No.25855/2017. The trial court had rejected I.A.Nos.I/2017 and II/2017 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating or creating third-party rights over the suit property. The appellant had filed the original suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated 01.01.2010 and for permanent injunction. The respondents, including M/s. Blue Horizon Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and others, opposed the injunction applications. The trial court, after hearing both sides, held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. The High Court, in the present appeal, examined the material on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The court noted that the appellant relied on an unregistered agreement of sale and did not produce any contemporaneous documents to prove payment of consideration or delivery of possession. The conduct of the parties, including the fact that the appellant did not take any steps for specific performance for several years, weighed against the grant of injunction. The High Court held that the trial court's discretion in refusing the injunction was not perverse or arbitrary and that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favor, or that irreparable injury would be caused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The appellant/plaintiff sought temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit property pending disposal of the suit for specific performance. The trial court rejected the applications holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The High Court affirmed, noting that the plaintiff's claim was based on an unregistered agreement of sale and the conduct of the parties did not support the existence of a valid agreement. (Paras 1-10) B) Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Unregistered Document - Prima Facie Case - The plaintiff relied on an unregistered agreement of sale dated 01.01.2010. The court observed that the plaintiff did not produce any contemporaneous documents to show payment of consideration or possession. The balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiff as the property was already subject to multiple transactions and the plaintiff's claim appeared stale. (Paras 11-20) C) Injunction - Discretionary Relief - Balance of Convenience - The court held that the trial court's discretion in refusing injunction was not perverse or arbitrary. The plaintiff failed to show that irreparable injury would be caused if injunction was not granted. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the applications for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the trial court dated 28.04.2018 rejecting I.A.Nos.I/2017 and II/2017.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- specific performance
- temporary injunction
- discretionary relief
