IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
T.V. Shathish – Appellant
Versus
G.R. Shekar & Others – Respondents
C.R.P(PD).No. 1623 of 2022
Decided on : 05-07-2022
Permanent Injunction - Joint Venture Agreement - Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. - [Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C.] - The court discussed the independence of cause of action for claiming a relief of permanent injunction and specific performance of agreement, highlighting that a plaintiff cannot claim both reliefs together on one cause of action. The court also emphasized the importance of relinguishing a part of the relief to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of the plaint seeking permanent injunction against the defendants from alienating the suit property. The trial Judge observed that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for recovery of money and that the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, setting aside the order of the trial Judge, and emphasized the independence of cause of action for claiming a relief of permanent injunction and specific performance of agreement.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff cannot claim both reliefs of permanent injunction and specific performance of agreement together on one cause of action, and emphasized the importance of relinguishing a part of the relief to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any court.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the order of the trial Judge was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the return order dated 24.02.2022 passed in unnumbered O.S.Sr.No.2291 of 2022 by the Hon’ble I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai and direct the Registry/Court to number the said Original Suit by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.)
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the docket order of the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 24.02.2022 made in O.S.Sr.No.2291 of 2022.
2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who has presented the plaint for seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating and encumbering the suit property in favour of the third parties. The said plaint was rejected as not maintainable. Aggrieved over the said order, the plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the plaintiff and the defendants had entered into a Joint Venture agreement for developing and promoting the suit property by way of building residential apartments. During the course of executing the project, the defendants have attempted to approach some other builders, violating the terms of contract and also attempted to sell the property in favour of the third parties. Since, the plaintiff has cause of action against the defendants to restrain them from alienating the suit property, he has filed the suit for permanent injunction.
4. The learned trial Judge has observed that the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.90,75,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only), on the basis of the alleged violations of the terms of the contract agreed between the parties through a Memorandum of Understanding and a revised letter dated 17.10.2019. It is further observed by the trial Court that the plaintiff has not sought for the relief of specific performance on the cause of action alleged by him and hence the suit is not maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since, the cause of action to claim the relief of permanent injunction is independent from that of the cause of action seeking the relief of specific performance, the plaint filed by the petitioner for seeking the relief of permanent injunction alone is maintainable. He attracted the attention of this Court to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of “Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Baldev Raj Walia & Another in support of his above contention. In the said Judgment, it is held as under:-
31) First, the cause of action to claim a relief of permanent injunction and the cause of action to claim a relief of specific performance of agreement are independent and one cannot include the other and vice versa.
32) In other words, a plaintiff cannot claim a relief of specific performance of agreement against the defendant on a cause of action on which he has claimed a relief of permanent injunction.
33) Second, the cause of action to claim temporary/permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering in plaintiff-s possession over the suit premises accrues when defendant No.1 threatens the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit premises or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to the suit premises. It is governed by Order 39 Rule 1(c) of the Code which deals with the grant of injunction. The limitation to file such suit is three years from the date of obstruction caused by the defendant to the plaintiff (See - Part VII Articles 85, 86 and 87 of the Limitation Act).
34) On the other hand, the cause of action to file a suit for claiming specific performance of agreement arises from the date fixed for the performance or when no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused by the defendant. The limitation to file such suit is three years from such date (See – Part II Artic
Rathnavathi & Another vs. Kavita Ganashamdas (2015 (5) SCC 223)
AI
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.