IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
P.K. Lohra, J.
Ashwin - Appellant
Versus
Kusum - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1525 of 2019
Decided On : 01-07-2019
INJUNCTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 CPC - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Appellants challenged an order granting a temporary injunction in favor of respondents, who were not parties to the main suit. The respondents claimed to be the legal heirs of the plaintiff in the main suit and sought to set aside an ex parte decree entered into by the plaintiff's nephew during the pendency of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court erred in granting a temporary injunction against the appellants, who were not parties to the main suit. The court noted that the respondents had filed an application to implead the appellants as parties to the suit, which was pending at the time the injunction was granted.
Issues: Whether a temporary injunction can be granted against an individual who is not a party to the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a temporary injunction can only be granted against an individual who is a party to the main suit. The court reasoned that granting an injunction against a non-party would violate the principles of natural justice and the basic tenets of law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the injunction order, and rejected the respondents' application for a temporary injunction. However, the court noted that the trial court could consider the respondents' prayer for an injunction afresh after deciding the application to implead the appellants as parties to the suit.
JUDGMENT
P.K. Lohra, J. - Appellants, who were arrayed as non-applicants in a petition for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC have preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC to challenge order dated 27th of May, 2019, passed by Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh (for short, 'learned Court below'). The learned Court below, by the order impugned, accepted application of the respondent No.1 & 2-applicants for temporary injunction.
2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this appeal are that at the threshold one Keshu Ram filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Smt. Jamna, inter-alia, claiming the reliefs that he may be declared owner of the properties mentioned in the suit and requisite entries made in the name of Smt. Jamna on the strength of Will dated 28th of March, 2007 be declared as null and void. During pendency of the suit, Keshu Ram died and his legal heir respondent No.3 was brought on record. Being close relative, good senses prevailed on the parties as both of them were aunt and nephew, and therefore, the dispute was amicably settled by way of compromise on 4th of October, 2018. The compromise eventually led to decreeing of the suit on 6th of October, 2018. Later on, respondent No.1 & 2 claiming to be grand-daughters of Late Shri Keshu Ram plaintiff, preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 7 & 13 CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the application, it is inter-alia averred that in the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, after death of Keshu Ram, notices were issued to them but they were served on mother as they were residing at their mother-in-laws' house. In want of knowledge, both the respondents could not appear before the learned Court below and respondent No.3 Bherulal entered into compromise with Smt. Jamna. It is further averred that the compromise was entered into by taking advantage of illiteracy of Smt. Jamna, who was unaware about surviving legal heirs of Keshu Ram, i.e. both respondents No.1 & 2. After passing of decree, third respondent transferred the property by a registered instrument in favour of appellants by accepting huge amount of consideration. It is further averred that appellants have demolished the existing structure and now raising construction over the disputed land. Besides filing application under Order 9 Rule 7, 13 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on behalf of respondent No.1 & 2 an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is also filed for impleading appellants as party to the suit. That apart, respondent No.1 & 2 also claimed temporary injunction against the appellants.
3. Although learned trial Court accepted application of the respondent No.1 & 2 under Order 9 Rule 7 & 13 CPC as well as under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and set aside exparte decree but their application for impleadment of appellants remain undecided. However, pending consideration the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the learned trial Court also heard arguments on application for grant of temporary injunction filed by respondent No.1 & 2 and by the impugned order granted injunction in their favour directing the appellants to maintain status quo regarding the suit property.
4. The grievance of the appellants is that they were not party to the suit and inspite of that learned Court below has granted indulgence to respondent No.1 & 2 on their prayer for grant of temporary injunction. It is further submitted by learned counsel that when application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment was pending, it was not expected of the learned trial Court to grant any injunction order. Learned counsel has further argued that temporary injunction can only be granted against an individual who is party to the main suit. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Bhagwat Singh Vs. Ms Basanti Manihar & Ors., (2013) WLC(Raj) 300 .
5. Per contra Mr. Jain submits that impugned order
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.