Court ruled that a temporary injunction requires proof of a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience; failing which, the injunction is unjustified.

ORDER

The case is listed today for admission and hearing on other interlocutory applications including I.A.No.10647/2025, application for vacating stay.

By the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

Present appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed in RCS No.812-A/2024 by VII Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal; whereby application filed by respondent/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been allowed injuncting the appellant/defendant from raising construction/development over his land.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA

2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction.

3. In reply to the application for temporary injunction, the defendant submitted that the defendant sent an offer letter dated 25.03.2022 to the plaintiff proposing construction of retaining wall, however, plaintiff in his reply dated 02.04.2022 did not accept the offer but instead merely inquired about the cost sharing aspect which does not constitute an agreement. It was also averred that mere anticipation of the plaintiff of landslide or some untoward incident over his land, the defendant cannot be restrained from construction/development of his own land and prayed for rejection of the application.

4. On the basis of the rival pleadings and documents, the learned Court below allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent/plaintiff thereby restraining the appellant/defendant from raising construction/development over his land. Being aggrieved, the appellant/defendant has filed the instant appeal.

5. It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that such impugned order dated 07.02.2025 is illegal, perverse to the material available on record and the Court below has exceeded in jurisdiction in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. It is further submitted that there was no concluded contract to ascertain any obligation to be performed by the appellant/defendant and the same was mere communication between two parties. It is also submitted that even if such a contract is assumed Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA to exist, then also such a contract is not executable as per Section 41 (e) and (ha) of the Specific Relief Act. It is submitted that until permission was not given by the authorities for construction of retaining wall, there was no reason to believe that the appellant/defendant was under any obligation to construct the said retaining wall and therefore, prayed that the order impugned be set-

aside.

6. Refuting the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the appellant, it is submitted by counsel for the respondent that the suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for specific performance, declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of an offer letter dated 25.03.2022 which was issued by appellant/defendant and accepted vide letter dated 02.04.2022 by the respondent/plaintiff with condition to bear 50% cost of retaining wall and as such it has been averred that the communication has turned into a concluded contract and the appellant cannot shirk its liability arising out of the said contract. It is further submitted that the appellant/plaintiff had started excavating the slope of the hill and cut it to the angle of 90 degree and vide letter dated 28.02.2024 has denied to erect the retaining wall. Some part of the land of the respondent/plaintiff is falling in the area where the excavation has been done at 90 degrees and there are chances of accident, land slide or mass destruction. It is also submitted that the appellant/defendant has started constructing multi-storey building and by way of letter dated 28.02.2024 has denied the concluded contract which may cause any