Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Rishi Rathi – Appellant
Versus
Parminder Kaur Khurana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant challenges trial court's order (Para 1) |
| 2. appellant argues existing rental contract (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. respondent clarifies order's prospective operation (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. appeal disposed with reservation of rights (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
CM APPL. 34047/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
FAO 226/2021&CM APPL. 34046/2021 (stay)
1. Appellant impugns order dated 08.04.2021 whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been allowed and appellant has been restrained from selling, transferring, alienating or parting with or raising construction or making any change in the suit property, till the disposal of the suit.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has erred in not noticing that in the written statement it was specifically stated that appellant has already let out the suit property on rent to one Ms. Manisha. He submits that is also so reflected in para 3.2 of the impugned order.
3. He submits that there is an apprehension that respondent may contend that after the passing of the order, premises have been let out and parted with possession in b
The court clarified that an injunction operates prospectively, and actions taken prior to the order do not constitute a breach.
The court clarified that an injunction cannot stand if the party seeking it is not presently in possession of the property.
The court upheld the interim order restraining unauthorized construction on the property during the pendency of the partition suit, emphasizing the prohibition of actions that could cause irreparable....
Letting out property essentially means creating third party rights in property.
The court clarified the limited extent of the restraint on the appellants and emphasized that the factual observations and findings in the impugned order shall not have a bearing on the final disposa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to direct the maintenance of status quo regarding a possession notice until the appeal and application are considered by the Trib....
The legal point established is that the scope and effect of injunction orders must be interpreted strictly, and the party complaining of disobedience must establish that the order is unambiguous and ....
The court's decision was based on the principle of maintaining status quo and ensuring that the petitioners' appeal is considered before any further action is taken.
The court upheld the necessity to maintain status quo during ongoing appeal proceedings due to the non-functionality of the appellate tribunal.
Provisions of Act should be construed having regard to purport and intent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
