2014 Supreme(All) 3023
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajes Kumar, Om Prakash-VII, JJ.
Hari Om Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Hanuman Prasad Poddar - Respondent
F.A.F.O. No. 2421 of 2014
Decided On : 25-08-2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Rahul Sahai and Sanjay Kumar Dubey
The absence of a relief for specific performance of a contract may impact the court's decision on granting interim injunction based on an oral agreement.
Headnote:
oral agreement - interim injunction - Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure - [Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure] - The court rejected the interim injunction application based on the finding that no right had accrued on the basis of the oral agreement in favor of the plaintiff-appellant to grant interim injunction. The court also observed that since no relief for specific performance of the contract had been sought, a serious question to be tried in the matter could not be construed in favor of the plaintiff-appellant. The court concluded that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss were not in favor of the plaintiff-appellant and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent regarding disputed properties, alleging an oral agreement and partial payment for the properties. The court rejected the interim injunction application, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no right had accrued on the basis of the oral agreement in favor of the plaintiff-appellant to grant interim injunction. It also concluded that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss were not in favor of the plaintiff-appellant.
Issues: Validity of the rejection of the interim injunction application based on an oral agreement and partial payment for disputed properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since no relief for specific performance of the contract had been sought, a serious question to be tried in the matter could not be construed in favor of the plaintiff-appellant. The court also concluded that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss were not in favor of the plaintiff-appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Om Prakash-VII, J.
1. This First Appeal From Order has been directed by the plaintiff-appellant against the order dated 8.7.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras in Original Suit No. 56 of 2014 (Hari Om Sharma v. Hanuman Prasad Poddar) whereby application No. 7 Ga for grant of temporary injunction has been rejected. The plaintiff-appellant filed a Suit No. 56 of 2014. The case set up in the plaint is that an oral agreement was entered into between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant-respondent to sell the disputed properties, shown as 'Schedule A', 'Schedule B' and 'Schedule C' in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on a consideration of Rupees seventeen lakh regarding the property shown in Schedule 'B', for Rupees one crore twenty-six lakh regarding the property shown in Schedule 'A' and for Rupees six lakh regarding the property shown in Schedule 'C'. Against the total consideration amount, Rupees seventy lakh regarding the property described in Schedule 'A', Rupees ten lakh regarding the property described in Schedule 'B' and Rupees four lakh regarding the property described in Schedule 'C' has been paid in advance by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendant-respondent, for which, the defendant-respondent has given acknowledgement and has handed over possession surrendering his ownership over the disputed properties. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant is the sole owner in possession of the disputed properties. The defendant-respondent has also agreed to execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant after obtaining the balance amount. The plaintiff-appellant has requested time and again to execute the sale deed in his favour but the defendant-respondent did not agree for the same and on 28.1.2014 threatened to the plaintiff-appellant to dispossess him from the disputed properties. It is also the case of the plaintiff-appellant that the defendant-respondent is trying to execute sale-deed of the disputed properties in favour of some other persons and is denying to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Thus, on the basis of this cause of action, the aforesaid suit was filed before the Court below praying for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent regarding the disputed properties restraining the defendant-respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellant and interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellant.
2. An application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the plaintiff-appellant to issue interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-appellant during pendency of the suit restraining the defendant-respondent to sell the disputed properties to other person and also from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellant from the disputed properties. The defendant-respondent filed an objection in the said suit.
3. After hearing both the parties, by the impugned order dated 8.7.2014, the Court below rejected the interim injunction application observing that prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Hence this First Appeal From Order.
4. We have heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the entire record.
5. It is submitted by Shri Rahul Sahai that prima-facie case was clearly made out in favour of the plaintiff-appellant to issue interim injunction till disposal of the suit. The defendant-respondent has himself admitted that plaintiff-appellant is in possession over the disputed properties. The factum of oral agreement and payment of certain consideration amount has also been admitted by the defendant-respondent, therefore, the Court below illegally construed the fact and rejected the interim injunction application. It is further submitted that at this stage, the Court dealing with the matter has to see only a prima-facie case. It is not expected from the plaintiff-appellant to establish at this stage prima-facie title ove