Back
High Court Of Orissa
P. K. MISRA
GRAFTEK PVT.LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
SHRI LORD LINGARAJ MAHAPRABHU - Respondent
MISC. APPEAL 24 Of 1996
Decided On : 08/31/1998
INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - ORDER 39, RULES 1 AND 2, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - IRREPARABLE LOSS - PRIMA FACIE CASE - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GRANT OF INJUNCTION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title over the disputed land and sought an injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of the land and from doing any kind of alienation till the disposal of the suit. The trial court granted the injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the trial court erred in granting the injunction. The court found that there was a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, but that no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction was not granted. The court also found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in granting the injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The principles governing the grant of injunctions were discussed. The court held that in order to obtain an interlocutory injunction, the plaintiff must show a prima facie case, that irreparable injury will be suffered if the injunction is not granted, and that the balance of convenience is in his favor. The court found that the plaintiff had not shown that irreparable injury would be suffered if the injunction was not granted and that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed subject to the defendants furnishing an undertaking that they would not claim any equity and would deliver vacant possession to the plaintiff in the event of the plaintiff's success.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasized that an injunction is granted only if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, demonstrates that irreparable injury will occur if the injunction is not granted, and shows that the balance of convenience favors them (!) (!) .
The trial court initially granted an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or changing the character of the disputed land until the case was decided (!) .
The appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting the injunction because the plaintiff did not sufficiently prove that irreparable loss would result without it, and the balance of convenience favored the defendants (!) (!) .
The appellate court highlighted that since the property was already in dispute and a suit was pending, the doctrine of lis pendens would prevent irreparable loss even if the property was alienated during the pendency of the case (!) (!) .
The court noted that if the defendants provide a written undertaking to restore possession and not claim any equity if the plaintiff succeeds, the risk of irreparable injury to the plaintiff would be mitigated (!) (!) .
The appellate court determined that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants, given their longstanding possession and prior constructions on the land, and thus, the injunction was unwarranted (!) (!) .
The appeal was allowed on condition that the defendants furnish an undertaking to deliver vacant possession upon the plaintiff's success, and any sale of the land should include a clause indicating it is subject to the outcome of the suit (!) (!) .
The court clarified that violation of these conditions could amount to contempt of court (!) .
Ultimately, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order, emphasizing that the circumstances did not justify granting an injunction and that the defendants' continued possession was to be respected until the final decision (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
P. K. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants against an order passed by the trial Court allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent for injunction and restraining the present appellants from changing the nature and character of the disputed land and from doing any kind of alienation in respect of the suit land till disposal of the suit.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent has filed Title Suit No. 235 of 1995 for declaration that defendants 1 to 4 or their vendor had not acquired any right of occupancy or any other right in respect of the disputed land. It is alleged that plaintiff is the owner in respect of the disputed land. By Resolution dated 10-3-1937 and 11-3-1937, it had been decided to lease out the disputed land in favour of Dr. Ramendu Ray subject to certain conditions and subject to depositing Rs. 250/ -. Though the said Ramendu Ray deposited Rs. 250/-, but the other conditions were not fulfilled and plaintiff continued in possession. On 24-9-1941, the Manager of the plaintiff wrote a letter to Dr. Ramendu Ray to comply with other conditions, but Ramendu Ray did not comply the same, but possessed the disputed land. When the plaintiff found out that Ramendu Ray's widow Bibhabati Ray was in wrongful possession of the disputed land, O. J. Case No. 66 of 1970 was filed under Section 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Thereafter the disputed land vested in the State Government and was settled with the plaintiff in a proceeding under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The matter came up to High Court in O. J. C. No. 166 of 1984 which was allowed in favour of the present appellants. The plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 5253 of 1995 in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal by judgment dated 2-5-1995 directed the plaintiff to file a suit in the Civil Court. Thereafter the suit in question was filed before the Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit, a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, was filed seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the disputed property and from raising any construction on the disputed land.
( 3 ) THE defendants in their objection raised several contentions against maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, principles of estoppel and res judicata and made averments indicating that the defendants had acquired indefeasible right over the disputed property.
( 4 ) THE trial Court found that there was prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. On these findings, the trial Court passed an order injuncting the defendants from alienating the disputed property and changing the nature and character of the disputed land till disposal of the suit. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants 1 to 4.
( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has not found out if any irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff in case injunction would have been refused. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the findings of the trial Court regarding existence of prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff are not tenable. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the reasoning given by the trial Court and has submitted that since serious questions relating to title are involved, the order passed by the trial Court should not be interfered.
( 6 ) THE principles governing grant of injunction are well-known and any attempt to re-formulate those principles is likely to be repetitive. Even then, the well-recognised principles need be reiterated particularly in view of the serious contentions raised by counsels for both parties. As early as in the decision, reported in AIR 1946 Patna 177 (Brajendra Nath Ghosh v. Smt. Kashi Bai), a Division Bench of the Patna High Court had laid down the various principles relating to grant of an order of i
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
