Back
1994 Supreme(Del) 741
High Court Of Delhi
N.S.S.MANI - Appellant
Versus
DELHI GYMKHANA CLUB LIMITED - Respondent
Interim Application 7316 of 1994
Decided On : 11/02/1994
Ashok Sagar, C.A.SINGH, P.K.JAIN, Vikramjit Sen
The court has the discretion to grant or deny an injunction and should consider the conduct of the parties, public policy, and the larger interest of society when making its decision.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - SPECIAL CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP - ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 CPC - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, special category members of Delhi Gymkhana Club, sought an injunction to use the club's facilities despite an injunction issued by a Sub-Judge restraining the club from allowing them access.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it would not grant an injunction that would conflict with the injunction issued by the Sub-Judge and that the plaintiffs should seek impleadment in the Sub-Judge's case and seek vacation of the injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the court should grant an injunction that would conflict with an injunction issued by a Sub-Judge? 2. Whether the plaintiffs should seek impleadment in the Sub-Judge's case and seek vacation of the injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court has the discretion to grant or deny an injunction. 2. The court should consider the conduct of the parties, public policy, and the larger interest of society when deciding whether to grant an injunction. 3. The court should not create a situation that would be incapable of solution or command a party to do something that it cannot possibly do. 4. A plaintiff is not bound by an injunction issued in a case to which they are not a party. 5. The court may transfer a suit to itself if it has higher pecuniary jurisdiction, but it is not obligated to do so. 6. The rule of dominus litus is not a rule of universal application. 7. The court has the statutory power to join a person as a party to the suit who ought to have been joined or whose presence before the Court may be necessary.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plaintiffs' application for an injunction and adjourned the hearing in the suit awaiting the orders of the Sub-Judge on the application seeking impleadment.
( 1 ) THROUGH an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the plaintiffs seek an injunction in the mandatory form commanding the defendnat Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. to permit the four plaintiffs the use of all facilities of the Club.
( 2 ) THE suit and the application have been filed on 11. 8. 94. Briefly stated the facts in so far as relevant fo the purpose of disposing of the controversy at this stage are not much in dispute and may briefly be noticed. On 20. 12. 93 a Joint Committee of the Club gave a report which was approved by A. G. M. on 29. 12. 93. Accordingly, applications were invited for membership in special category. The plaintiffs are the four amongst other who made such applications and were allowed such membership w. e. f. August, 1993 onwards.
( 3 ) ONE Sanjeev Kumar Singh a permanent member of the Club filed a suit No. 98/94 in the Court of Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Sub-Judge, Delhi and therein got an injunction on 7. 4. 94 restraining the defendant-Club from permitting any of 458 the persons mentioned in list Annexure-A (which list includes the four plaintiffs herein) from using any of its facilities and benefits in any manner whatsoever till disposal of the suit.
( 4 ) THE defendant Club has filed an appeal agains ; the order of the Sub-Judge. In the appeal, an interim stay on the injunction order of the Sub-Judge was sought for which has been denied by the Addl. Senior Sub-Judge on 13. 5. 94.
( 5 ) IT appears that Mr. M. S. S. Mani, the plaintiff No. 1 herein has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment before the Addl. Senior Sub-Judge as also before the Sub-Judge. The order dated 28th May, 1994 passed by the Addl. Senior Sub-Judge discloses the Counsel for Mr. N. S. S. Mani having not pressed the application before that Court on the ground that similar application was pending before the Trial Court. Consequentially the application has been dismissed.
( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the plaintiffs have been placed in a situation incapable of solution. They are not the parties before the Sub-Judge. Still the injunction issued by the Sub-Judge is operating against them. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted before me that this Court be pleased to grant an injunction as prayed for hereat.
( 7 ) MR. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, the member of the Club who has filed the suit before the Sub-Judge is not a party in this case.
( 8 ) THE two sets of plaintiffs before the two Courts have created a strange situation. The plaintiff before Sub-Judge knows it well that the injunction though sought for and issued against Gymkhana Club would in result operate against such persons who have been allowed special category membership, yet such members, the person affected, have not been joined as parties to the suit. On the contrary, the plaintiffs herein are seeking injunction from this Court which if allowed is sure to run in conflict with injunction order dated 7. 4. 1994 granted by the Sub-Judge. In both the cases Zymkhana Club is the sole defendant. It would be impossible for the Club to honour both the injunctions. The Club and its office bearers surely run the risk of being haulted-up for having violated one of the two injunctions.
( 9 ) IT is well settled that injunction is discretionary jurisdiction of Court. It is not bound to grant an injunction merely because it may be lawful to do so. There are several factors which have to be taken into consideration and which govern such discretion of the Court. The conduct of the parties has to be seen. The considerations of public policy and larger interest of the Society have also to be kept in view. The Court would not by its command create a situation which would be incapable of solution nor command a party to do something which it cannot possibly do.
( 10 ) PLACING reliance on Khushi Ram v. Lal Man, 1982 RLR 681, Bipan Kumar v. Sham Sunder, AIR 1977 HP 90 and Dasari Suryanarayana v. D
