Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tarun Agarwala, J.
Tej Narain Upadhyay —Petitioner
versus
Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran,
Allahabad & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15748 of 2008
Decided on 28.5.2009
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.A. Qadeer and Mr. Mustaqeem Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. J.N. Sharma & Mr. B.B. Paul, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
If anyone of ingredients for grant of injunction is missing, no injunction can be granted.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Rules 1, 2 and 2A—Temporary injunction—Application under Order 39, Rule 2A complaining about breach of injunction dismissed—Order of status quo was passed by Trial Court in presence of counsel for both parties—Inspite of this order, defendants took law into their own hands and placed their lock in premises and forcibly evicted plaintiff for premises—Defendants prima facie violated injunction order—However, question as to whether defendant violated orders of Trial Court deliberately and mala fidely is a question which has to be adjudicated by Trial Court in pending application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A—Court not inclined to grant injunction in favour of plaintiff because three essential ingredients for grant of injunction are missing—Even though petitioner may have made out a prima facie case in his favour but, balance of convenience and irreparable injury is not in his favour—If contract had wrongly been rescinded, petitioner would get adequate damages/compensation for wrongful recession of contract—But, by a grant of injunction, Court could not bring clock back and allow petitioner to complete duration of contract period—Petition dismissed. (Paras 9 to 12)
Result: Petition dismissed with direction to Trial Court to decide application within 4 months.
Tarun Agarwala, J.— The Allahabad Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as the ADA, invited tenders for running a swimming pool in Bharadwaj Ashram Park, which is owned and managed by the Allahabad Development Authority. The petitioner submitted his tender, which was accepted by the authority, and an agreement dated 5.6.2005 was executed for a period of 5 years. Under the terms of the agreement, the petitioner was required to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 21,881 and the respondents were obliged to provide electricity and water to the petitioner for running the swimming pool.
2. It is alleged that pursuant to a Public Interest Litigation filed in the High Court, an order dated 25.4.2006 was passed, whereby all the parks, located in the city of Allahabad, was directed to be handed over for its maintenance to the Nagar Nigam Allahabad, pursuant to which, Bharadwaj Ashram Park was handed over to the Nagar Nigam, Allahabad. It is alleged that the water for the swimming pool, which was being provided by the Allahabad Development Authority from a tubewell, was located in the Bharadwaj Park but, on account of the park being handed over to the Nagar Nigam, the tubewell was also handed over to the Nagar Nigam. This resulted in the non supply of the water to the petitioner. Since the Allahabad Development Authority started neglecting to supply the electricity and water to the petitioner, the petitioner represented and eventually a meeting dated 24.3.2007 was held between the authorities of the Nagar Nigam and the Allahabad Development Authority, in which the petitioner was also invited. It is alleged, that the two authorities resolved that the Nagar Nigam would supply the water to the petitioner from its tubewell. The cost, however, was to be born by the Allahabad Development Authority. It is alleged that pursuant to the said resolution, the Allahabad Development Authority started harassing the petitioner and compelled him to give its acceptance to pay the electricity and water charges. When the petitioner refused to do so, a notice dated 17.4.2007 was issued directing the petitioner to give his written consent for payment of the electricity and water charges, within three days failing which, the agreement would be cancelled.
3. The petitioner, apprehending that adverse steps would be taken by the authority, filed a suit for permanent injunction, on 9.4.2007, praying that defendants be restrained from rescinding the contract and from interfering in the right of the petitioner to operate the swimming pool, till 4.6.2010, i.e., till the date of the validity of the agreement. An application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for an interim relief was also filed. The Trial Court, on this application, for grant of a temporary injunction, issued notice to the opposite party, pursuant to which, the defendant, Allahabad Development Authority appeared and sought time to file objections, which was granted. The Court, eventually by an order dated 25.4.2007, after hearing the parties, granted a temporary injunction, directing the parties to maintain status-quo on the spot pursuant to the agreement entered between the parties. It is alleged that, inspite of the injunction being granted and which was in the knowledge of the defendant, the defendants took the law into their own hands and locked the premises in the evening of 25.4.2007, as a result of which, the petitioner was forcibly ousted from the premises and was unable to run the swimming pool as per the agreement. An application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the CPC was also filed which is pending consideration. On 5.5.2007, the defendants filed their objections, and subsequently, the trial Court, after considering the matter, rejected the application for grant of a temporary injunction. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. Consequently, the present writ petition.
4. Heard Sri M.A. Qadir, the learned senior counsel,
