Back
Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOI, JJ.
Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Others
Versus
Khushnuma Ibrahim & Others
CIVIL APPEAL No. 678 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) 31559 of 2012)
Decided On : 24-01-2013
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 39 Rule 1-Interim injunction-Interim reliefs which amount to pre-trial decrees must be avoided wherever possible-Power of self-correction and comprehension of orders of superior forums in proper perspective will go a long way in resolving dangers inherent in deciding an interim matter on issues that may have a close connection with those arising in main suit. (Paras 13 and 14)
(2004)11 SCC 672; (1990)2 SCC 117; 1990 (Supp) SCC 727-Relied.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is designed as a summary process aimed at providing an immediate remedy for dispossession without delving into questions of title or superior rights of possession. The primary issue in such proceedings is whether the plaintiff was in possession within six months prior to filing the suit, emphasizing the need for a quick remedy to prevent illegal dispossession and discourage outside remedies (!) (!) .
Interim reliefs that amount to pre-trial decrees should be avoided whenever possible. Proper understanding of orders from higher courts and the context of interim decisions is crucial to avoid potential dangers inherent in deciding such matters prematurely (!) (!) .
The grant of interim relief, especially mandatory relief such as possession, requires a high degree of satisfaction from the court. It should be based on clear evidence that the applicant has a strong case, that irreparable harm may occur without such relief, and that the balance of convenience favors the applicant. The court’s discretion in such matters must be exercised judiciously, considering the facts and circumstances of each case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court should not interfere with the trial court’s exercise of discretion unless the decision is palpably incorrect or untenable. The initial court’s view must be considered a possible and reasonable interpretation of the evidence, and the appellate court’s role is not to substitute its own judgment unless the decision was arbitrary or capricious (!) .
The exercise of appellate power must align with established legal principles, and the manner of exercising such power should respect the discretion exercised by the trial court. Interfering with a discretionary order without proper grounds constitutes an error, especially when the order is within the bounds of reasoned judicial exercise (!) .
The decision emphasizes that the court’s conclusion is not an opinion on the merits of the case but a correction of the manner in which the appellate power was exercised. The case is remanded with instructions to dispose of the main suit within a specified period, ensuring an expeditious resolution consistent with legal standards (!) .
These points summarize the core legal principles and procedural considerations discussed in the document, without referencing specific case law or external sources.
Judgment :-
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by the grant of interim relief by an Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter for short the “SR Act”), the present appeal has been filed by the defendants 5, 10 and 11 in the suit. More specifically, by the impugned order dated 09.10.2012 the Receiver of the suit properties appointed by the learned Single Judge has been directed to remain in possession and hand over the same to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) who are to be in possession as agents of the Receiver.
3. Before embarking upon the necessary discussion of the factual matrix of the case, an identification of the contesting parties in the manner indicated below would be necessary.
“Table”
4. The plaintiff No. 1 claims to be the 3rd wife of one Ibrahim Khan whereas the plaintiff No. 2 is the son of the first plaintiff and Ibrahim Khan. According to the plaintiffs, Ibrahim Khan and the first plaintiff were married in the year 1993 and out of the said wedlock the plaintiff No. 2 was born some time in the year 1996. The plaintiffs claim that they alongwith Ibrahim Khan were residing in flat No. A-505, Noor-e-Jahan Complex, Pipe Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai and that they were also in occupation of an office being 201/202, 2nd floor in the Big 3 Building, 88, Anandilal Poddar Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai from where the first plaintiff was carrying on her profession of advocate and solicitors in the name of M/s. K.K. Associates. It is the case of the plaintiffs that both the aforesaid properties were the self-acquired properties of Ibrahim Khan and that the suit flat was gifted in favour of the first plaintiff whereas a general power of attorney was executed in favour of the first plaintiff insofar as the suit office is concerned.
5. The further case of the plaintiffs is that Ibrahim Khan had gone to Delhi on 28.11.2011 to attend a wedding. On 1.12.2011 the first plaintiff could come to know that Ibrahim Khan had suffered a brain hemorrhage and was admitted in the hospital. According to the plaintiffs, they took an early morning flight to Delhi on the very next day. However, at about 9.30/10.00 O’Clock in the morning, Ibrahim Khan died. Thereafter, at the insistence of the first defendant (brother of the deceased) the body of the deceased was taken to Bhagalpur, Bihar which was the native place of Ibrahim Khan. The plaintiffs accompanied the body of the deceased to Bhagalpur and the last rites were performed at the said place in the afternoon of 4.12.2011. On 5.12.2011 the plaintiff No. 1 received a call from her next door neighbour, one Nadeem, that the lock of the suit flat was broken and a new lock had been placed by some unknown persons. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff called her house help Niranjan who informed her that the defendants 2, 3 and 4 had forcibly taken possession of the suit flat. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that when she had contacted her office she was informed that the defendant No. 4 had gone to the suit office and had snatched the keys from the office staff and had locked up the premises.
6. According to the plaintiffs, they reached Mumbai on 6.12.2011 and on going to the suit flat they found that new locks had been put thereon. They, thereafter, lodged a complaint to the police on 6.12.2011 and thereafter on 12.12.2011 instituted Suit No. 27 of 2012 under Section 6 of the SR Act. On 14.12.2011, when the matter was taken up by the Court, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 informed the Court that they are not in possession of the suit flat but it is the defendants 5, 11 and 12 who are in possession. The Court by order dated 14.12.2011 appointed a Receiver and directed him to make an inspection of the suit flat and suit office and report back to the Court. Such inspection was made by the Court appointed Receiver on 16.12.2011. The report of inspection was submitted to the Court to the effect that the defenda
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
