1994 Supreme(Raj) 582
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Kejriwal, J.
Sohan Lal Sethi - Appellant
Versus
Gyan Chand Choradia and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 830 of 1993.
Decided On : 13-01-1994
An injunction order can be varied or set aside if it causes undue hardship to the party against whom it is granted.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - ORDER 39 RULE 4 C.P.C. - ORDER 39 RULE 4(2) C.P.C. - Where an order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation 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.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for leasing out disputed land for 60 years. An injunction was granted restraining the defendants from transferring the land or dispossessing the plaintiff. The defendants applied to modify the injunction, arguing that it caused them undue hardship as they were deprived of using their land and were suffering financial loss. The plaintiff opposed the application, arguing that the delay in the disposal of the suit was not attributable to him and that he was willing to pay rent if the defendants executed a lease deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injunction order had caused undue hardship to the defendants as they were deprived of the use of their land and were suffering financial loss. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession of the land until the execution and registration of the lease deed, and that he had not paid rent since July 1983.
Issues: Whether the injunction order caused undue hardship to the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injunction order had caused undue hardship to the defendants as they were deprived of the use of their land and were suffering financial loss. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession of the land until the execution and registration of the lease deed, and that he had not paid rent since July 1983.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal in part and directed the plaintiff to pay the defendants arrears of rent from the date of the injunction order and to continue paying rent in accordance with the agreement until the date of the decision of the suit. The court also directed the plaintiff to conclude his evidence within six months and the defendants to conclude their evidence within one year. The court directed the trial court to decide the suit within two years from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
JUDGMENT
1. - This Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.P.C., has been directed against the order dated 5.11.1993, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, allowing the application of the defendant-respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C.
2. Brief relevant facts of the case are that on 5th July, 1986, the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement with the allegations that on 20.2.1978, the defendant-respondents entered into an oral agreement with the plaintiff-appellant for leasing out the, disputed lands for the period of 60 years. Later on, on 8th April, 1978, a written agreement was executed between the parties to lease out the disputed land to the plaintiff-appellant. In accordance with the said agreement, the plaintiff paid rent of the disputed land to the defendants and obtained possession on 25th August, 1980. Since then the appellant is in possession of the disputed land. Now the defendants want to dispossess the appellant. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and injunction against the defendant respondents. The plaintiff-appellant also filed an application for temporary injunction and prayed that the defendant-respondents be restrained from transferring the disputed land to any other person and from dispossessing plaintiff appellant from the same. The defendant-respondents filed a detailed reply of the plaint and alleged that the plaintiff appellant committed breach of the agreement and under these circumstances the agreement was cancelled by them.
3. The trial Court vide its order dated 31st July, 1986, directed both the parties to maintain status-quo. This order was subsequently continued after hearing defendants on 18th October, 1986.
4. On 2nd September, 1989, the defendants filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. with the allegations that the plaintiff paid holding rent of the disputed land till 19th July, 1983; that thereafter the plaintiff stopped the payment of holding rent and that the defendants had already moved the Jaipur Development Authority for granting permission for construction of commercial complex on the disputed land but on account of the injunction order, they have been deprived of using their own land. it has been further mentioned that the defendants have been suffering loss of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The suit is likely to take several years and under these, circumstances, the injunction granted by the trial Court on 31st July, 1986, which was confirmed on 18th October, 1986, be modified and the plaintiff appellant he directed to pay the holding rent with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 31st July 1986, and to continue to pay the same till the decision of the suit.
5. The plaintiff filed reply to the said application, in which he alleged that the order dated 18th October, 1986, was passed after hearing counsel for the respondents and with their consent and as such the said order can not be modified. He further alleged that he was ready and still willing to pay the rent to the defendants, provided they execute lease-deed of the disputed land in his favour.
6. The Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his order dated 5th Nov., 1993, came to the conclusion that under the facts and circumstances of the case the order of temporary injunction has caused undue hardship to the defendants and as such he directed the plaintiff to make the payment of arrears of rent to the. defendants respondents within a period of two months and to continue to pay Rs. 4,000/- of the rent every month in accordance with the agreement. This order has been challenged by the plaintiff appellant in this appeal.
7. I have heard Shri S.K. Keshote, counsel for the plaintiff appellant and Shri B.P. Agrawal, counsel for the defendant-respondents and gone through the record.
8. Shri Keshote argues that the application submitted by the defendant-respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. is
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
