Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Rajni Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Kalu Ram Meena - Respondent
C.W.P. No. 269 of 2018
Decided On : 07-02-2018
Manoj Bhardwaj, Prahlad Sharma, Advocates for the appearing parties.
A court may grant an interim injunction to restrain a party from doing an act that would cause irreparable harm to the other party, even if the plaintiff's case is not fully established.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 CPC - SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION - INTERIM INJUNCTION GRANTED BY TRIAL COURT - APPEALED BY DEFENDANTS - LOWER APPELLATE COURT SET ASIDE THE INTERIM INJUNCTION - HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE INJUNCTION - REINSTATED THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with her peaceful occupation and construction of her property. The trial court granted an interim injunction, which was upheld by the lower appellate court and the High Court. However, the lower appellate court later set aside the interim injunction. The plaintiff challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the lower appellate court erred in setting aside the interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had a prima facie case in her favor, the balance of convenience was in her favor, and she would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted. The court also found that the defendants had not taken any steps to restrain the plaintiff from construction or possession of the property since 2010.
Issues: Whether the lower appellate court erred in setting aside the interim injunction granted by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mandali Ranganna v. T. Ramchandra and Kishorsini Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corp. & Ors. The court held that the grant of injunction is an equitable relief and the court must consider the basic elements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, as well as the conduct of the parties.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the lower appellate court, and reinstated the interim injunction granted by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J —Plaintiff-Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendants-respondents be restrained from interfering in peaceful occupation and use of the suit property and be also restrained from creating any hindrance in the construction work.
2. The plaintiff-petitioner has stated that she had purchased a Plot No.107, measuring 200 sq. yards through registered sale deed on 12/07/2010 from the original allottee namely; Mr. Raghuveer Singh Hada in whose name the letter of allotment was issued by the cooperative housing society. The plaintiff-petitioner is in physical possession of the plot and was making construction on it after having obtained electricity connection. It is stated that she had already constructed the boundary wall and one room earlier but now she was constructing the entire house. However, the defendants-respondents have threatened the plaintiffpetitioner from raising any further construction and therefore, the need arose for filing the suit with the prayer as noted above.
3. The learned trial court vide order dated 17/08/2017 restrained the defendants-respondents from causing any interference in the peaceful possession and use of the suit property and also in making construction on the said property.
4. The learned lower appellate court, in the appeal preferred by the defendants-respondents has, however, passed the order impugned dated 10/11/2017 setting aside the order of the learned trial court dated 17/08/2017 with further observation that the plaintiff-petitioner would be free to move any application if the interim order of status-quo passed by the Additional District Judge No.19 is in any manner changed.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the learned trial court had earlier passed an order on 25/03/2017 initially on the same terms as the final order passed in the temporary injunction. The order dated 25/03/2017 had been upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and the High Court also had upheld the order upon SB Civil Writ Petition No.9789/2017 having been preferred by the defendants-respondents with further observations that the temporary injunction application be finally decided. Now, when the temporary injunction application has been finally decided in the same terms and same order has been passed as was passed earlier on 25/03/2017, the learned lower appellate court had no occasion to change the same in appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner further submits that the suit, which is pending before the Court of Additional District No.19, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, is between the defendants-respondents and Patel Nagar Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti and as the plaintiff-petitioner is not a party to the said suit, the status-quo order passed in the said suit could not have been applied on the case filed by the plaintiff-petitioner which is essentially to protect her own property on which she is having her possession.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner further submits that there was no occasion for the learned lower appellate court to have set aside the interim order passed by the learned trial court unless the trial court had in any manner acted beyond its jurisdiction. The learned counsel has relied on the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kishorsini Ratansinh Jadeja Vs. Maruti Corp. & Ors, 2009 2 WLC(SC) (Civ) 475 wherein an injunction order restraining from making any construction on disputed land after the construction had already been made halfway, was found to be unjustified. Counsel has also relied on the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mushtkeen & ors. Vs. Arun Kumar Jhunjhunwala (deceased) & Ors.: (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.3645/2011) , decided on 11/12/2013 wherein the appellants were allowed to make construction subject to their own costs and risk.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner relied u
