JUDGMENT - DAGA V.C., J.: - This appeal from order is heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The appellant is challenging the legality and validity of the interim order dated 23-1-2004 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, granting interim injunction in favour of the respondent original plaintiff, whereby the appellants are restrained from demolishing or destroying plaintiff's hoardings put up on the terrace of the building of the defendant society.

The Facts:

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in nutshell are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit against the present appellant claiming declaration that there was a concluded contract between the defendants and the plaintiff allowing the plaintiff to put up the hoarding structures on the terrance of the defendants for displaying advertisements therefrom and also prayed for permanent injunction.

4. In the aforesaid suit, respondent plaintiff took out Notice of Motion bearing No. 26/2002 for interim relief.

5. The trial Court after hearing plaintiff was pleased to grant ad interim with liberty to serve Notice of Motion. After service, Notice of Motion was taken up for hearing. The City Civil Court, Bombay, by a cryptic order without recording any reasons in support thereof, has made the Notice of Motion absolute and thereby allowed the respondent plaintiff to continue to utilise hoardings beyond the period stipulated in the written contract.

The aforesaid order is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal.

Consideration:

6. Having heard parties, if one turns to the impugned order, the order is running into four paragraphs. First paragraph only says heard the advocates. Second para describes the mere fact that the Notice of Motion was taken out by the plaintiff restraining the defendants from disturbing, demolishing and/or removing the plaintiff's hoardings from the suit premises. It is nothing but reproduction of prayer clause. Third para refers to the agreement and defaults committed by the plaintiff in payment of amount of monthly compensation with conclusion that dispute between the party is nothing but monetary dispute which cannot be ascertained at the stage of motion. Last para of the order states that ad interim relief is running in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. That is how plaintiff is held to be entitled for order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing or destroying plaintiff's hoarding. The trial Court with such perfunctory order proceeded to grant interim relief which is not only travelling beyond the scope of the suit but also beyond the period of the contract. The trial Court nowhere refers to any of the ingredients of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are required to be considered before granting injunction.

7. It is now well settled that granting or refusing to grant interim injunction is covered by three well established principles, viz.: 1) Whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case; (2) Whether balance of convenience is in his favour and (3) Whether petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and/or injury if temporary injunction is refused.

8. The party who seeks the aid of the Court for injunction must show that the complained of is in violation of his right and whether there is a fair and substantial question to be decided between the parties, and that there is a bona fide dispute between the parties. If such conditions are proved to be available, then relief can be prayed for. It is, then the duty of the Court to consider the materials placed on record in the matter of granting or refusing to grant temporary injunction. Considering the documents an appropriate interim order can be passed. The order granting or refusing to grant interim relief must contain some discussion with respect to the document placed on record. The order must reflect an application of mind on the part of the Court passing the order.

9. Interim reliefs are granted on the b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document