Interim injunction refused for material concealment of prior compromise; courts deny equitable relief to unclean hands, no interference absent perversity when actions per settlement cause no prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and judgment dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Learned District Judge Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in civil misc. appeal no. 1/2025 affirming the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by Ld. Civil Judge in CMA No. 704 of 2024 in civil suit no. 379 of 2024 may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice and fair play.”

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by learned Court Trial Court dated 18.01.2025, in terms whereof, an application filed by the him under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 has been dismissed as well as the judgment dated 28.08.2025, passed by learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the appeal preferred against the order passed by the learned Trial Court, was also dismissed.

3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the orders under challenge, this Court does not find any infirmity therein. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court demonstrates that it refused indulgence under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. Learned Trial Court returned the findings that the factum of a compromise having been entered between the parties earlier, in a civil litigation, was concealed by the plaintiff from the Court and as material facts stood concealed by the petitioner/plaintiff from the Court for obtaining the equitable and discretionary relief of injunction, no interim could be granted to the plaintiff.

4. Learned Appellate Court upheld the findings returned by the learned Trial Court by holding that learned Trial Court rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it as documents filed by the parties demonstrated that in an earlier suit, compromise was entered between the parties qua Khasras No. 3267 and 3268, as a result whereof, the defendant gained rights over certain portion of Khasra No. 3267, which belonged to the plaintiff and in lieu whereof, the defendant had relinquished certain portion of his land comprised on Khasra No. 3268 belonging to him. Learned Appellate Court also held that the defendant was raising construction only over said certain portion of Khasra No. 3267, which caused no prejudice to the plaintiff as the defendant was acting strictly in consonance with the compromise entered between the parties.

5. As it is evident from the findings returned both by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court that there was material concealment of facts by the present petitioner, who did not disclose the factum of there being compromise in a suit between the parties and thus intended to gain an interim order by suppressing material facts, the grant thereof was rightly refused by the learned Trial Court and learned Appellate Court. Even otherwise, this Court having perused the order and judgment under challenge does not find any perversity therein because when the matter was earlier settled between the parties by way of a compromise and as both the learned Courts have held that the defendant was not exceeding the rights as stood conferred to him in the compromise, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the matter.

6. In the light of above discussion, this petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the findings returned herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of this petition only and the civil suit shall be decided by the learned Trial Court, uninfluenced by these findings. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.