IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Rekha Borana, J.
Anand Kumar Bhansali S/o Late Paras Singh Bhansali - Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Bhansali S/o Late Paras Singh Bhansali and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1418, 1733 of 2022
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 - Property - Suit for partition - Permanent injunction - A suit for partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction was preferred by plaintiff – Commercial use of property had not been undertaken in effect by defendants.
Finding of Court:
It is essential to clarify that judgments as cited at Bar have not been taken into consideration by Court because of facts, firstly, learned counsel for respondents have themselves undertaken not to raise any construction or let out suit property till final disposal of temporary injunction application and secondly, Court has not entertained present appeals qua any relief over and above above mentioned two reliefs - Leaving issue of subsequent commercial use of property to be pleaded and agitated before learned Trial Court, impugned order is set aside to extent it permits respondents No.1 to 4 to raise construction on suit property or to let it out - Qua other reliefs, same is upheld.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Both the appeals arise out of the order dated 05.05.2022 and hence the same have been heard and are being decided together.
2. Vide the impugned order dated 05.05.2022, the Additional District Judge No.7, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court') has proceeded on to pass an ad interim order which reads as under :
3. The present appeals have been preferred by the plaintiff & defendant No.5 respectively against the above order only to the extent it permits the respondents No.1 to 4 to raise construction over the disputed property and to let it out although with certain conditions.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under :
5. A suit for partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction was preferred by the plaintiff-Anand Kumar Bhansali on 04.05.2022. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, CPC with a prayer for interim relief was also preferred. The notices of the temporary injunction application were served on the defendants in the evening of the same date and the matter was directed to be posted on the very next date. On 05.05.2022, after hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to pass the ad interim order as reproduced above. Vide the order impugned, the learned Trial Court has restrained the defendants no.1 to 4 from creating any third party interest in the suit property by any mode of transfer i.e. mortgage, sale etc. However, the defendants have been permitted to use the suit property in the manner they were using it previously. With the said restraint order, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to hold that the defendants would be free to take up repairs etc. in the property with a rider that if any construction work is taken up, no right because of the said construction would be created in their favour. Further that if the property is let out to any third party during pendency of the suit, the tenant/third party would be entitled to the rights accrued only till disposal of the present suit.
6. It is against the above mentioned order that the present appeals have been preferred by the plaintiff as well as defendant no.5 only to the extent whereby the learned Trial Court has permitted the defendants no.1 to 4 to raise construction as well as to let out the suit property.
7. Although the prayer made in the present appeals is limited to the above mentioned extent, the arguments raised by both the parties before this Court were totally on the different footing. During the course of arguments, it has been argued that subsequent to the passing of the order impugned dated 05.05.2022, the defendants-respondents have taken up the commercial activities in the premises and therefore, they be restrained from using the property for commercial purposes.
8. Vide interim order dated 21.10.2022, it was directed as under :
Letting out property essentially means creating third party rights in property.
Point of law: If an injunction is obtained falsely stating that High Court has refused to grant an injunction and when the same is also not considered on main and it will be considered along with mai....
The court clarified that to obtain a temporary injunction, a party must demonstrate irreparable harm, a favorable balance of convenience, and a prima facie case even without physical possession.
The court established that the doctrine of lis pendens protects a plaintiff's rights in a property dispute, preventing any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit, and emphasized the impor....
Defendants, who file a counter claim against the plaintiff, can maintain an application for temporary injunction against the plaintiff. Additionally, the court may injunct the plaintiff to maintain s....
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.