Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dr. C.M. Balakrishnan, filed a suit (O.S. No. 8120/2012) before the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, seeking to restrain the first respondent, Sri G. Narayan, from constructing a building on his adjacent property without leaving setbacks as per the sanctioned plan, and also seeking a mandatory injunction to remove unauthorized construction in the setback area. The suit was filed on 16.11.2012 along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. On the same day, the trial court granted an order of status quo regarding construction. Subsequently, the first respondent filed I.A. No. 3 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC seeking vacation of the status quo order. The trial court, by order dated 15.12.2012, allowed I.A. No. 3 and vacated the status quo. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. The High Court noted that the trial court vacated the status quo without any change in circumstances, as the first respondent had not even filed objections to the injunction application. The court held that the order vacating status quo was not sustainable and that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order dated 15.12.2012, and restored the status quo order dated 16.11.2012 pending disposal of the suit. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Vacation of Injunction - Order 39 Rule 4 CPC - Change in Circumstances - The trial court vacated the status quo order granted on 16.11.2012 without any change in circumstances, as the first defendant had not even filed objections. The appellate court held that the order vacating status quo was not sustainable and restored the status quo pending disposal of the suit. (Paras 4-6) B) Property Law - Construction Dispute - Setbacks - Sanctioned Plan - The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from constructing without leaving setbacks contrary to the sanctioned plan. The court found that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in favor of granting injunction to prevent unauthorized construction. (Paras 2-3) C) Civil Procedure - Appeal against Order - Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - Maintainability - The appeal was filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 15.12.2012 allowing I.A.No.3 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC. The appellate court admitted the appeal and passed the interim order. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in vacating the status quo order granted earlier, without any change in circumstances, and whether the appellate court should restore the status quo pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on I.A. No. 3 in O.S. No. 8120/2012, and restored the status quo order dated 16.11.2012. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Order 39 Rule 4 CPC
- Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Temporary Injunction
- Vacation of Injunction
- Change in Circumstances
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Injury
