The RERA Act excludes Civil Court jurisdiction for disputes covered under its provisions, rendering any injunction by the Civil Court a nullity.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. The instant appeal raises an important issue striking at the jurisdiction and competence of the Civil Court in entertaining the dispute, the redressal whereof is provided in a Special Act, though not taken before it but discernible from the averments made in the plaint as well as the application for temporary injunction filed before the Civil Court. The point urged before us was neither put forth before the Trial Court nor argued at the behest of the plaintiff-respondent but is taken before us by the defendant/appellant, if found to be correct, would exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit having barred either expressly or by necessary implication.

2. The instant appeal is against an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction passed by the Trial Court at the behest of the defendant/respondent who neither appeared in the said suit at the time of passing impugned order nor filed the pleading raising such issue. We permitted the defendant to take such plea as we find the reference of the initiation of the proceedings before the RERA having pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent in the plaint as well as the temporary injunction application for the simple reason that if it is ultimately found that the jurisdiction or competence of the Civil Court is expressly or by necessary implication is barred under the RERA Act, any order be it ad interim, interim or temporary injunction would be regarded as a nullity.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit before the Civil Court with the principal relief that the defendant/appellant may be directed to pay the remaining balance of the consideration amount agreed under the agreement for sale and to execute the deed of conveyance in respect of a flat covered under the said agreement for sale. In other words, it is a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale upon payment of the remaining balance consideration money.

4. Often a question arises whether the Court should enter into such aspect at the stage of temporary injunction which is primarily decided on three golden parameters namely, existence of prima facie cases, balance of convenience and inconvenience, irreparable loss and injury. It is no longer res integra that the order of injunction be it ex-parte, interim or temporary, the Court must consider whether it has a jurisdiction in relation to a subject matter and the same has not been excluded under the Special Act either expressly or by necessary implication. Even though the Court can grant injunction yet it must have the competence in jurisdiction to do so and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court assumes an importance role in exercising such jurisdiction and the power so conferred upon it. The Court shall not pass injunction despite having satisfied itself the fulfilment of the aforesaid three parameters if it lacks competence and jurisdiction in relation to a subject matter or such jurisdiction is either expressly or impliedly barred under the particular statute.

5. The exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court should not be readily inferred but can be excluded only by express provision in the statute or by necessary implication. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure postulates that every Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue unless such jurisdiction is expressly or by necessary implication is barred. It is in such sense the Courts in the country have accepted the normal Rule of Law that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of civil natu