Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.M. Dharmadhikari, B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Patnam Shakuntala & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Giridhar Mulji Chavda (D) by Lrs. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. of 2005 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.20074-20075 of 2003)
Decided On : 08-04-2005
Delay - Interim Order - The court held that the High Court erred in vacating the injunction already granted, as it would create third party interest and prolong the litigation. The court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property until the decision of the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against the interim order passed in appeal by the High Court vacating the earlier order of injunction granted directing maintenance of status quo.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in exercising the discretion in vacating the injunction already granted and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The cases were sent back to the High Court to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property involved.
Issues: Delay in filing the counter affidavit, interim order passed by the High Court, discretion in vacating the injunction, third party interest, and prolonging the litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court erred in vacating the injunction already granted, and it would create third party interest and prolong the litigation. Therefore, the court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property involved.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the cases were sent back to the High Court to decide the appeals afresh. The parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the property involved.
ORDER :
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned.
2. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appeals are filed against the interim order passed in appeal by the High Court vacating the earlier order of injunction granted directing maintenance of status quo. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the High Court erred in exercising the discretion in vacating the injunction already granted. The result would be that third party interest would be created and the litigation will prolong. Instead it could have been appropriate for the High Court to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the property in question until decision of the appeals.
4. We dispose of these appeals by setting aside the impugned order of the High Court. The cases are sent back to the High Court to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law.
5. We direct the parties to maintain status quo, i.e., not to alienate or create a third party interest in the property involved. On behalf of the sole respondent in SLP(C) No.20130/2003, the counsel appearing states that the matter has been settled inter se between the parties and no further directions are required.
6. The appeal accordingly stand disposed of.
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
