Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Mahendra Dayal, JJ.
Octane Hospitality Pvt.Ltd.,Thru.Director Sanjiv Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Shyam Narayan Singh - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 1177 of 2016
Decided On : 22-12-2016
Interim Injunction - Application for Grant of Interim Injunction - The court rejected the application for grant of interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, stating that no interim relief or injunction, much less mandatory injunction, can be granted at the interim stage, which is in the nature of final relief/final decree.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a Regular Suit seeking possession of a property and recovery of damages. The appellant also moved an application for grant of interim injunction, which was rejected by the court below. The appellant appealed against this rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prayers made in the main suit and those in the application for grant of temporary injunction were substantively the same. It held that no interim relief or injunction, much less mandatory injunction, can be granted at the interim stage, which is in the nature of final relief/final decree.
Issues: Validity of the rejection of the application for grant of interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no interim relief or injunction, much less mandatory injunction, can be granted at the interim stage, which is in the nature of final relief/final decree.
Final Decision: The First Appeal From Order was dismissed at the admission stage. The court directed the court below to expedite the proceedings of the Regular Suit and conclude the same within twelve months, with no adjournments except in extraordinary circumstances.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellant filed a regular suit seeking possession of a property and damages, and also applied for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The application was rejected by the court below, which was challenged through a First Appeal From Order (F.A.F.O.) (!) (!) .
The court observed that the prayers in the main suit and the application for interim relief were substantively the same. It reaffirmed that interim relief, especially mandatory injunctions, cannot be granted at the interim stage as they are akin to final relief or decree (!) (!) .
The court upheld the rejection of the interim injunction application, emphasizing that the same substantive prayers in the suit and the interim application mean the relief sought is essentially final, and thus, cannot be granted prematurely (!) .
The appellate court dismissed the F.A.F.O. at the admission stage, confirming the correctness of the lower court's order and directing the lower court to expedite the proceedings of the main suit, concluding it within twelve months with limited adjournments (!) (!) .
The appellant claimed that the property was in a dilapidated state, with notices issued for demolition, and argued that in case of any mishap, responsibility would fall on the appellant, who is not in possession of the property (!) (!) .
The court noted that the appellant cannot be held responsible for any mishap occurring in the property if he is not in possession at the relevant time (!) .
Overall, the court directed the lower court to proceed with the main suit diligently and within a specified timeframe, emphasizing that no adjournments should be granted except under extraordinary circumstances, and requiring reasoned orders for any such adjournments (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court's reasoning and directives based on the facts and legal principles discussed in the document.
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Mahendra Dayal, JJ. -- Heard Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi,learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This First Appeal From Order challenges the validity of an order 22.10.2016 passed by learned court below whereby the application moved by the appellant-plaintiff for grant of interim injunction has been rejected.
3. The appellant has filed Regular Suit no.0001799/2016, which is pending before the court below, with the prayer that by a decree of possession the respondent-defendant be directed to handover the vacant peaceful possession of the property in suit. A further prayer for recovery of certain amount towards damages has also been made in the suit.
4. An application for grant of interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was moved by the appellant with the following prayers:-
"For the facts, reasons and circumstances deposed in the accompanying affidavit, particularly in light of the fact that the building is about 80 (Eighty) years old and is in dilapidated condition, some portion whereof fell down in earthquake in the year 2015 and some portion of the building is still intact but the same in very ruinous condition and may fall down at any moment, it is most respectfully prayed of this Hon'ble Court to kindly be pleased to pass an ad-interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, directing him to vacate the property in dispute in his illegal possession and make matching alternative arrangements of similar size (etc.), for which the plaintiff is ready and willing to bear the rent(s), etc., during the pendency of the instant suit, without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff, in the interest of justice, for which acts of kindness the plaintiff shall ever pray as in duty bound."
5. The appellant had earlier filed F.A.F.O No.934 of 2016 before this Court against the order dated 27.09.2016 whereby learned court below had invited objection on the application for grant of temporary injunction, namely, Application No.C-6. The said F.A.F.O was finally disposed of by this Court by means of the order dated 07.10.2016 observing therein that the court below shall take up the application for temporary injunction and pass appropriate order thereon on the next date fixed. It was further provided in the said order dated 07.10.2016 that if the respondent-defendant does not file any objection against the application for grant of temporary injunction, learned court below shall pass an ex-parte order on the application which shall be subject to final disposal of the same.
6. In compliance of the order dated 07.10.2016, the learned court below has proceeded and considered the application for grant of temporary injunction by means of the impugned order and has rejected the same. After discussing the case of the appellant-plaintiff, learned court below has observed that prayers made in the plaint for grant of final relief and those made in the application seeking grant of temporary injunction are substantively the same. Relying on settled principle of law that no interim relief or injunction much less mandatory injunction can be granted at the interim stage, which is in the nature of final relief/final decree, learned court below has rejected the application moved by the appellant-plaintiff.
7. If the prayers made in the suit and the prayers, as quoted, made in the application for grant of interim injunction filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC are compared what is noticed is that they are the same. We are convinced that the findings recorded by the court below in the impugned order dated 22.10.2016 are correct. The prayers made in the main suit and those in the application for grant of temporary injunction are substantively the same and hence, in our considered opinion, the impugned order dated 22.10.2016 does not suffer from any illegality so as to call for any interference by this Court.
8. The F.A.F.O. is,thus, dismissed at the admission stage 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
