HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
RAHUL BHARTI, J
NAZIR HUSSAIN – Appellant
Versus
KHURSHID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS – Respondent
MA 24 / 2024
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 43 Rule 1(r) and Section 104 - Appeal against temporary injunction - The appellant, a dealer, challenged a restraint order preventing the alienation of a petrol pump owned by a lessee, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, to a third party - The court found that the appellant and the respondents had no proprietary rights over the petrol pump, thus the restraint was unwarranted - The court stayed the operation of the impugned order and allowed the respondent to exercise its rights under the dealership agreement. (Paras 4, 5, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a defendant in a civil suit, was restrained from alienating a petrol pump owned by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, which was leased to the respondent. The suit involved a dispute over an Agreement to Sell purportedly made between the appellant and the respondents.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the property of the respondent should not be subjected to restraint by parties lacking proprietary rights, and the operation of the impugned order was stayed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court's restraint order on the alienation of the petrol pump was justified given the lack of proprietary rights by the appellant and the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that third-party property cannot be involved in dealings between parties without proprietary rights, emphasizing that the restraint order was inappropriate.
Result: The operation of the impugned order is stayed.
ORDER :
1. The appellant herein is a defendant No. 1 in a civil suit filed by the plaintiffs who are the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. In the said suit, the other two defendants are Rajinder Kumar and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Territorial Manager as the defendants No. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 3- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is the respondent No. 4 in the present miscellaneous appeal.
2. Respondent No. 4/defendant No. 3 is a lessee of a plot of land measuring 16 marlas falling in khasra No. 275 min situated in village Saikloo, tehsil Mandi District Poonch in terms of a Lease Deed dated 22.03.2014 which is for a period of thirty years. In the said Lease Deed, the lessor is the appellant. On the demised piece of land, the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 3 came to set up a retail outlet petrol pump for running of which petrol pump, the appellant came to be constituted as a dealer.
3. In terms of a Memorandum of Agreement dated 29.03.2014, the appellant in his purported capacity as a dealer vis-à-vis the petrol pump of the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 3 purportedly came to enter into an Agreement to Sell dated 09.06.2023 with the respondents No. 1 and 2 which set into effect a series of litigation inter se the appellant and the respondents No. 1 and 2, the latest thread of which came to be in the form of a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of specific performance of contract dated 09.06.2023 with further consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant No. 1/appellant herein from creating 3rd party interest in favour of the defendant No. 2-Rajinder Kumar who is the respondent No. 3 herein.
4. The suit has been filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 before the court of learned Principal District Judge, Poonch in which on an application bearing No. 12-A/Civil Misc seeking temporary injunction, the court of learned Principal District Judge Poonch, by virtue of an order dated 30.05.2024, has restrained the appellant from alienating the petrol pump in favour of the defendant No. 2/respondent No. 3 and further restrained the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 3 HPCL from transferring the said petrol pump in favour of the respondent No. 3/defendant No. 2 till disposal of the main suit. It is this restraint order which has bothered the appellant to come before this Court in an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, one salient aspect comes out and that is the property of the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 3-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in the form of petrol pump is being made a part of a deal by the strangers i.e., the appellant and the respondents No. 1 and 2 who in no sense have any proprietary right, title or interest qua the dealership saleability and, therefore, the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 3-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ought not to have been subjected to any restraint by the trial court of learned Principal District Judge, Poonch on any pretext much less under the pretext of the civil suit filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. 3rd party’s property cannot become a matter of deal between the strangers as the case seems to be.
6. Issue notice to the respondents.
7. Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 4. Let notice go to the other respondents.
8. Appellant to furnish registered postal covers for the service of the respondents No. 1 to 3 within a period of seven days whereupon the Registrar Judicial, Jammu to issue notice to the said respondents.
9. Send for the scanned record of the civil suit titled “Khurshid Hussain and anr vs. Nazir Hussain and ors” from the court of learned Principal District Judge, Poonch.
10. List again on 02.09.2024.
11. In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order is stayed. However, the respondent No. 4-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited shall be well wi
Third-party property cannot be subjected to restraint by parties lacking proprietary rights, making such injunctions inappropriate.
A plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC if it discloses a cause of action, even if the defendant has sold the property, as triable issues exist regarding interference in rights.
The court established that pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act is not mandatory when urgent interim relief is sought, allowing for the grant of ex-parte injunction....
In temporary injunction applications, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss must guide the decision, especially when one party has already made significant investments based on legal docume....
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.