The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction in a specific performance case, emphasizing the need for caution in appellate review of such discretionary orders.

ORDER

This case was heard and reserved for orders on 25.02.2025.

2. This Misc. appeal under order 43 Rule 1 ® of CPC has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the order dated 08.10.2024, passed in Civil Suit No. RCS 105A/2024, (Rahul Jain Vs. Padam and others) by 6th District Judge, Damoh.

3. It is submitted that suit was filed for specific performance of contract regarding alleged agreement dated 31.07.2023. The suit property is situated in Village Laadanbagh, Tehsil and District- Damoh. The application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiff was allowed. It is also submitted that the agreement dated 31.07.2023 is an unregistered document and changes were made in the agreement without prior taking consent of the appellant, therefore, it was void. The agreement was for six months but balance amount was not paid, therefore, no relief should have been granted on the basis of said document. Therefore, when time is an essence of the contract and payment was not made, then no relief should have been granted. Even otherwise, plaintiff fails to fix show readiness and willingness.

4. Notice was issued to the respondent/plaintiff but they did not appear, inspite of service of notice as per office note dated 01.02.2025, therefore, the arguments of the appellant’s counsel were heard.

5. It has been mentioned in memo of appeal many changes were made in the unregistered documents, but in the copy of agreement of the sale at Pages No.19 to 21, no changes are reflected, therefore, this court is unable to hold at this moment as evidence in trial Court is to be recorded that document was unauthorizedly changed. It was also not argued at the time of arguments that what changes have been made, regarding readiness and willingness, all these matters can be decided only after recording of evidence of both the parties and purpose of injunction is to preserve the property, therefore, no interference can be made in the order. In case of Ramakant Amballa Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others, passed in Civil Appeal No. 13001/2024, order dated 22.11.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Paras, 32, 42, 43, 45 and 47 as under:-

32. The appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well settled principles governing the scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 of the CPC which have been reiterated in various other decisions of this Court. The appellate court should not assume unlimited jurisdiction and should guide its powers within the contours laid down in the Wander (supra) case.

xxxxxx

42. Instead of subjecting the order of the trial court to the right degree of appellate scrutiny warranted in appeals against interlocutory orders, the High Court has made general and overbroad observations touching upon the malicious intention of the plaintiffs in filing the civil suit and the application below Exhibit- 5 for the grant of temporary injunction. The failure of the High Court in pointing out any perversity in the order of the trial court is a glaring reminder of why the High Courts must exercise their appellate jurisdiction against interlocutory orders involving the exercise of discretion of the trial court with great caution and mindfulness. High Courts must not lightly set aside the decision arrived at by the trial court in exercise of its discretion unless the order of the trial court fails to satisfy the parameters as delineated by us in the preceding paragraphs. The failure to engage with these crucial aspects renders the High Court's order deficient, detracting from the objective of rendering substantive and reasoned justice.

43. It is also pertinent to observe that immediately after the High Court set aside the order of the trial court granting interim injunction, the defendant no. 3 entered into a transaction which created a third party right on the suit property. A perusa