Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Bank of Baroda - Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India - Respondent
FAO 51 of 2021 & CM Appl. 4514 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2022
Injunction can only be modified under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC if there is a change in circumstances or undue hardship, which was not demonstrated by the appellant.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 4 - Appeal against rejection of application for vacation of injunction - The appellant sought to vacate an injunction granted in 2013 but failed to demonstrate any change in circumstances or undue hardship, as required by law. (Paras 11-16)
(B) Temporary Injunction - Conditions for modification - An injunction cannot be modified unless the requirements under Order 39 Rule 4 are satisfied, including showing a change in circumstances or hardship. The trial court found no such bases for granting the vacation. (Paras 12-17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant opposed the continuation of an injunction related to a letter of credit on the grounds of payment made, but did not appeal previous orders confirming the injunction.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the trial court's rejection of the application was justified as no grounds were met for modification of the injunction.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the criteria under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC were met and whether any hardship was suffered by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without meeting the explicit legal conditions for modification of the injunction under Order 39 Rule 4, the earlier orders must remain in effect.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The appeal was against an order dated 10.12.2020, which dismissed applications filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC by both the appellant and respondent no. 1 (!) (!) .
-
The applications sought the vacation of an earlier order dated 25.02.2013, which had been confirmed by an order dated 13.08.2015 (!) .
-
The court noted that an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC is permissible only if the applicant demonstrates a change in circumstances or undue hardship since the original order (!) (!) .
-
The court observed that the appellant failed to establish any change in circumstances or undue hardship that would warrant modification or vacation of the injunction (!) .
-
It was also noted that no appeal had been filed against the original orders, and the application did not meet the legal requirements stipulated for such modifications (!) (!) .
-
Consequently, the court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the orders of injunction should remain in effect and that the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was rightly rejected (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized the importance of expediting the trial proceedings, directing the trial court to conclude the case by a specified date (!) .
-
The judgment clarified that the order did not express an opinion on the merits of the case but was limited to the procedural and legal considerations regarding the injunction and its modification (!) .
-
The order was to be uploaded on the court's website and communicated to the involved parties (!) .
These points encapsulate the court's reasoning and decision regarding the application for modification of an injunction under the specified procedural rules.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impugning previous orders and application dismissals. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. court's rationale for maintaining prior injunctions. (Para 9 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. conditions under order 39 rule 4 cpc for modifying injunctions. (Para 11 , 12 , 16) |
| 4. rejection of the appeal and instruction for expediting trial. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 5. final clarification on judicial opinion and order dissemination. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellant impugns order dated 10.12.2020 whereby the application filed by the appellant as also by respondent no. 1 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC have been dismissed.
3. Both applications had sought vacation of order dated 25.02.2013 which had been confirmed by the order dated 13.08.2015.
4. Notice has been served on respondent No. 3, however, none appears for respondent no. 3 (defendant No. 2 in the suit). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since appellant has already made the payment of the letter of credit to respondent No. 3, respondent no. 3 may not be interested in defending the appeal.
5. In view of the above, respondent no. 3 (defendant no.2 in the suit) is proceeded ex-parte.
6. Subject suit was filed by the respondent no. 2 seeking declaration, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction.
7. By order dated 25.02.2013 while issuing summons in the suit, on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court had noticed that an order has been placed upon respondent no. 3 for supply of industrial oil and payment was to be paid through letter of credit after 180 days.
8. Respondent no. 3 had approached the bank for encashment of letter of credit. The case of the plaintiff was that goods had not been supplied. As per the plaintiff, the documents attached by respondent no. 3 with the letter of credit, i.e., invoices and lorry receipts were forged.
9. Keeping in view the said submissions on behalf of the plaintiff, the Court had granted interim injunction on encashment of letter of credit. Said injunction continued from time to time till it was confirmed by order dated 13.08.2015 and the injunction is to continue during the pendency of the suit.
10. Thereafter subject application seeking modification of order dated 25.02.2013 was filed on 14.09.2015 which application has been dismissed by the impugned order.
11. The impugned order notes that an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC is permissible only if in the application seeking temporary injunction or in the affidavit supporting such application, a party has made false and misleading statement in respect to a material particular and injunction was granted without notice to the opposite party.
12. Second proviso to Order 39 Rule 4 CPC lays down that where an order of injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, said order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside except where such discharge, variations or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party.
13. As noticed by the trial court there is no modification or variations sought of order dated 13.08.2015 which had confirmed the initial ad-interim order dated 25.02.2013.
14. Further, it is noticed that nothing had been brought on record to show that the appellant had suffered any hardship or that there was any change in the circumstances.
15. Trial court has also noticed that no appeal has been filed by the appellant either against the order of 25.02.2013 or against the order dated 13.08.2015.
16. Since the application filed by the appellant does not satisfy the requirements of the second proviso to Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the orders dated 25.02.2013 and 13.08.2015 do not warrant any modification or vacation under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
17. In my view, the trial court has committed no error in rejecting the application fil
