Back
N.N.MITHAL
SHIV RAM SINGH – Appellant
Versus
MANGARA – Respondent
Question 1? How to exercise inherent power to grant temporary injunction when Order 39 rules 1 and 2 are not strictly complied with? Question 2? What is the scope of "by any party" in Order 39, Rule 1 regarding granting interim injunction in favor of the defendant? Question 3? What are the exceptional circumstances justifying invoking the inherent jurisdiction to grant ad interim injunction?
Key Points: - (!) The court held that the trial court can grant a temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent power even if Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 are not strictly complied with. - (!) The words "by any party" in Order 39, Rule 1 include both the plaintiff and the defendant, allowing injunctions in favor of the defendant in appropriate cases. - (!) Inherent jurisdiction may be invoked to grant ad interim injunction when without it the property in suit would be altered, damaged, or under other compelling circumstances. - (!) The defendant may seek injunction under Sec. 151 in appropriate cases, subject to exceptional circumstances and equitable considerations. - (!) The court may impose restrictions (e.g., limiting repairs to a portion in occupation and require permissions) and still grant injunction under inherent power. - (!) The appeal was dismissed with no costs, affirming the injunction order as just and equitable. - (!) There is precedent recognition that inherent powers are wide enough to include temporary injunctions not fully covered by Order 39. - (!) The order can be revisable, not easily appealable when granted under inherent power; proper remedy may be revision.
( 1 ) IN this appeal the plaintiff appellant has challenged correctness of the order of injunction issued by the Court below :-
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a title to the disputed property claimed by the plaintiff and respondent both. According to the appellant he was in possession of the entire property while defendant asserts her own possession.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff in his suit prayed for injunction against respondent No. 1 praying that his possession may not be disturbed. However, the application remained pending for long time but no effort was made by the plaintiff to have it decided. In the Court below the appellant urged that the aforesaid application should be decided only after the evidence of parties had been recorded. Noticing that the application had been pending for a long time the court took the view that perhaps the plaintiff does not wish to press the application and accordingly rejected the same. Since no appeal against this order has been filed the order has become final.
( 4 ) ON the other hand the defendant had also moved an application to restrain the plaintiff from interfering in her carrying out repairs to the property in dispute. Since there wa
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
