Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, J
Parmeshwari Dutt – Appellant
Versus
Kailash Dev – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition, petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 07.12.2024, passed by learned Additional district Judge, Una in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 35 of 2024, whereby the appeal of respondent herein under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) has been allowed and the order dated 22.07.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P., in CMA No. 175-VI-24, has been set-aside.
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 611 of 2024, pending adjudication before learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P. He has sought a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent/defendant to the effect that the respondent/defendant be restrained from raising any construction over and changing the nature of land comprised in Khewat No. 45, Khatauni No. 85, Khasra No. 2 in Mohal Amoklan Sadoo, Sub Tehsil Bharwain, District Una, H.P. ( for short, “suit land”) till partition of the same.
3. As per petitioner/ plaintiff, the suit land is joint between the parties and respondent/defendant without getting the land partitioned had started extending illegal threat t
A petitioner seeking an interim injunction must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the application may be dismissed.
A plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, which was not established in this case.
Section 36 of Specific Relief Act vests Court with power to grant injunction at its discretion.
A plaintiff must establish a prima-facie case and demonstrate exclusivity to obtain an interim injunction regarding joint property.
To obtain interim injunction, a petitioner must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm; failure to satisfy these elements results in dismissal of t....
The applicability of Section 10 of the CPC is determined by the identity of issues in the suits, not the nature of relief sought.
Subsection (2) of Section 40 of Specific Reliefs Act provides that no relief for damages shall be granted under this section unless plaintiff has claimed such relief in his plaint.
The court upheld the temporary injunction based on the partition deed and relevant material on record, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the appellate court's decision.
Principle of equity, which is cardinal while deciding the grant of equitable relief of injunction, has duly been considered.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
