Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
SHAKIR KHAN AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
Smt. CHAMELI DASS AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6569 of 2017, decided on 7th February, 2018)
Result; Petition Allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court examined the validity of an ex parte ad interim injunction granted by the trial court, which restrained the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and construction activities over the suit property (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs claimed ownership through registered sale-deeds and asserted that the defendants interfered with their construction work, prompting them to seek temporary injunction (!) .
The order of the trial court permitted the plaintiffs to raise constructions before the final decision on the temporary injunction application, which was challenged for not adhering to well-established principles of injunction law, particularly the requirement to maintain status quo and record reasons for ex parte orders (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court upheld the trial court's order but added a rider that if the suit was ultimately decided against the plaintiffs, they would demolish the constructions at their own cost (!) .
The petitioners argued that granting such constructions during the pendency of the suit was contrary to legal principles, as it effectively altered the status quo and granted final relief prematurely (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the primary purpose of temporary injunctions is to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable damage, not to permit alterations or constructions that could prejudice the final outcome (!) (!) .
It was noted that ex parte injunctions require the court to record specific reasons, especially when granted without notice, to ensure due process and fairness (!) (!) .
The court found that the trial court's order allowing the plaintiffs to raise constructions was not sustainable because it lacked proper reasoning and was contrary to the principles governing temporary injunctions (!) (!) .
The order of the appellate court affirming the part of the trial court’s order permitting construction was also set aside, as it was not justified under legal principles (!) .
The court directed that the application for temporary injunction be decided promptly by the trial court, ideally within twelve weeks, after the petitioners file their objections (!) .
The petition was allowed to the extent that the orders permitting the raising of constructions during the pendency of the temporary injunction application were set aside, reaffirming the importance of maintaining the status quo until the final decision (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—A supplementary-affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on record.
2. Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents states that he does not wish to file any reply to the same and the matter may be heard.
3. The petitioners, by means of instant petition, have questioned the validity of an order of ex parte ad interim injunction dated 30.5.2017 passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No. 210 of 2017 and the order dated 7.10.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Bareilly in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2017 dismissing the appeal and affirming the order of the trial Court subject to certain modification.
4. Original Suit No. 210 of 2017 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents against the petitioners and defendant-respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession, enjoyment and the construction work, which was being undertaken by the plaintiffs over the suit property. Plaintiff No. 1 claimed that he had purchased part of the suit property, the description whereof was given at the foot of the plaint, from Jitendra Kapoor, registered power of attorney holder of Ram Sahai. Plaintiff No. 2 also claimed title over another part of the suit property, also on the basis of sale-deed dated 15.2.2012, executed in his favour by Jitendra Kapoor, registered power of attorney holder of Ram Sahai. Plaintiff No. 3 claimed title to yet another part of the suit property on basis of registered sale-deed dated 25.2.2012 executed in his favour by Jitendra Kapoor, registered power of attorney holder of Ram Sahai. They claimed that on 25.5.2017 they had collected building material for construction of a residential building, but on 28.5.2017 the defendants interfered in the construction work, compelling them to institute the suit. The plaintiff-respondents also filed an application seeking temporary injunction and prayed for grant of ad interim ex parte injunction on the date, the suit was instituted. The trial Court, by impugned order dated 30.5.2017, after referring to the three sale-deeds in favour of the plaintiffs held that in case ex parte injunction is not granted in their favour, the very object of filing suit would stand defeated. Accordingly, the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs as well as in their right to raise constructions over the suit property.
5. The petitioners, who claim to have purchased the suit property by separate registered sale-deeds from legal heirs of Late Ram Sahai between 2012 and 2016, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court granting ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs as also in their right to raise constructions, filed appeal. The appeal, as noted above, has been dismissed and the order of injunction granted by the trial Court has been approved subject to the modification that in case the suit is ultimately decided against the plaintiffs, they would demolish the constructions at their own cost.
6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that (i) the trial Court, by permitting the plaintiff-respondents to raise constructions, has virtually granted the final relief which is not permissible; (ii) the trial Court has granted ex parte injunction without recording reasons why the object of seeking injunction would stand defeated, in case ex parte injunction is refused; and (iii) the purpose of granting temporary injunction is to preserve the suit property by maintaining status quo, whereas the order of the trial Court permitting the plaintiff-respondents to raise constructions even before the application for temporary injunction is decided, is contrary to the well established principles on which injunctions are granted.
7. Per contra, Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 contended that the plaintiffs are owners
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
