The court clarified that a temporary injunction must be supported by clear grounds of legal right and irreparable harm, emphasizing the necessity of examination of the lease agreement clauses.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 03.09.2024, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.22 of 2024, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi.

2. In terms of the said order, appeal filed by the defendant challenging the order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.753 of 2023, on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Hubballi, is reversed. The injunction granted against the defendant is vacated.

3. The Trial Court had restrained the defendant from putting up the structure in the suit schedule property. The Appellate Court has vacated the injunction order.

4. The plaintiff has filed the present petition. The parties to the proceeding are referred to as per their designation in the suit.

5. The Court on 09.10.2024 passed the following order when the case was listed for preliminary hearing.

“Parties are directed to maintain status quo till the next date of hearing.”

6. It is noticed from the said order that the prayer seeking temporary injunction is not decided on merits and order is granted only till next date. Thereafter, said order was extended from time to time till next date of hearing.

7. In this background, the defendant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘Code’) to vacate the interim order granted by this Court.

8. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent, this petition is heard on merits.

9. Certain facts are admitted.

10. The defendant is the member of the plaintiff-Housing Co-operative Society. The defendant applied for a site under the plaintiff. The site was allotted to the defendant and a registered lease cum sale agreement was executed on 17.06.1994. This fact is not in dispute. The Clauses No.3, 6 and 7 in the lease cum sale agreement are relevant for the adjudication of this case.

11. Plaintiff on 27.04.2018 issued a notice to the defendant asking the defendant to handover the lease-cum-sale agreement as well as the possession of the property.

12. The plaintiff-Society urged two grounds to seek possession;

a. That the building is not constructed within 10 years from the date of execution of lease-cum-sale agreement:

b. The defendant suppressed the fact that family member was possessing a site within Hubballi- Dharwad Corporation limit and was not eligible to apply for the site.

13. Citing aforementioned two reasons, the plaintiff-Society claimed that the possession of the property. Since the defendant did not handover the possession and title deed the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.753 of 2023, on the file of learned Civil Judge, Hubballi, for declaration and mandatory injunction.

14. The suit is filed on the premise that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of lease cum sale agreement dated 17.06.1994.

15. The plaintiff sought temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from putting up the structure in the suit property.

16. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and restrain the defendant from putting up the structure in the suit property.

17. The First Appellate Court on an appeal filed by the defendant vacated the temporary injunction.

18. The Trial Court assigned the following reasons while granting injunction:

“18. If the temporary injunction is granted for a short term, the defendant will be restrained from constructing the building over the suit property. If the te