An interim injunction can be vacated if the party does not comply with the agreed terms, reinforcing the importance of adherence to preconditions for maintaining such relief.

JUDGMENT :

In Re: FMAT 433 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025, CAN 2 of 2025

1. The present appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration that the plaintiff/appellant is a bona fide parking fee collecting agent under the defendant no.1/respondent no.1 and has the right to continue to run the fee parking zone at Jogendra Kabiraj Row (eastern side) and for ancillary reliefs.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge initially refused ad interim injunction, against which an appeal was preferred before this court.

3. A Division Bench of this court, vide order dated February 17, 2025 passed in the said appeal bearing FMAT 175 of 2024, had allowed the appeal, thereby setting aside the order impugned therein and granting ad interim injunction restraining the defendant no.1/respondent no.1 and its men and agents from disturbing the collection of parking fees by the appellant on the eastern side of Jogendra Kabiraj Row till disposal of the injunction application in the trial court.

4. Simultaneously, however, it was made clear that the above injunction was granted subject to the condition that the appellant shall go on paying the remuneration, as fixed by agreement between the respondent no.1 and the appellant, to the respondent no.1 for collection of parking fees from the eastern side of Jogendra Kabiraj Row.

5. In default of such payment, it was recorded, it would be open to the respondent no.1 to apply for vacating the interim order before the learned Trial Court.

6. Subsequently, although the appellant claims to have gone on paying Rs.300/- as parking fees, the learned Trial Judge, by the present impugned order, vacated the ad interim order of injunction on the application made in that regard by the defendant/respondent no.1 on the premise that the default clause of the order of this court in the previous appeal had come into operation, since the remuneration payable by virtue of the agreement between the parties was not paid by the appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant disputes such proposition and submits that although there was an agreement between the parties to pay at the rate of Rs.1200/- per day as collection charges remuneration, the same was not applicable to the eastern side of Jogendra Kabiraj Row.

8. It is alleged that due to the harassment being suffered by the appellant at the hands of the agents of the respondent no.1-Society, by not only damaging the parked cars but also attempting to harass the family of the appellant, the parking fee collection is suffering.

9. That apart, it is submitted that there was no written agreement between the parties at any point of time for any such payment to be made.

10. Learned counsel places particular reliance on the admitted rate chart for various categories of day car parking lots, from where it appears that at the most, five two wheelers and ten cars/vans/mini buses can be parked on the said street per day.

11. Even if it is construed that the capacity of vehicles is parked on the said side of the road on a day, the total amount collected by the appellant would not reach Rs.1200/-, which is claimed by the defendant /respondent no.1 to have been paid by the plaintiff/appellant.

12. Moreover, it is pointed out that the learned Trial Judge proceeded on a patently erroneous premise by observing that the job cards indicate that an amount of Rs.1200/- was being paid per day by the appellant.

13. Learned counsel points out that the job card, that is, Exhibit-18, which was relied on by the learned Trial Judge, is in respect of the western side of Jogendra Ka