Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3540
PATNA HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Jha, J
Md. Ehtesham – Appellant
Versus
Afshan Rahman – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous No.1921 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. J. S. Arora, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Najeeb Ahmad, Advocate
An interim injunction cannot be granted without establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; failure to meet these criteria invalidates the injunction.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Order 43 Rule 1(r) - Injunction - The court set aside the orders of the lower courts affirming an injunction against the petitioner, ruling that the lower courts erred in granting an interim injunction that effectively determined the main relief without a proper basis. (Paras 3, 12, 15)
(B) Injunction - Requirements - The court emphasized that for an interim injunction to be granted, all three elements—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—must be present, and the absence of any one negates the possibility of an injunction. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the injunction granted to the respondent concerning construction rights over a property purchased via a sale deed. The respondent claimed rights over the property, alleging the petitioner had no authority to construct above the purchased area.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower courts had misapplied the law regarding the grant of interim injunctions, effectively granting main relief prematurely.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the lower courts properly assessed the requirements for granting an interim injunction and the interpretation of the sale deed regarding construction rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lower courts failed to consider the necessary elements for granting an injunction and that the orders were against established legal principles, warranting intervention.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the orders of the lower courts were set aside, with directions for maintaining status quo until the suit's resolution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the factual background of the property dispute and prior court orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of the injunction orders. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis of the sale deed and the appropriateness of the injunction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's directive to maintain status quo regarding the property. (Para 13) |
| 5. final conclusion and order for expeditious trial. (Para 14 , 15) |
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 11-07-2024
The present Civil Miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 31.08.2018 passed by learned District Judge, Gaya in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 03 of 2018 and order dated 03.11.2017, passed by learned Subordinate Judge-VIII, Gaya in Title Suit No. 80 of 2017/754 of 201, affirming the injunction granted to the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 by the learned trial court.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as it emerges from the record, are that the respondent no. 1 as plaintiff purchased of a portion of multi storied building through registered sale deed dated 26.05.2006 to the extent of 992.80 sq. feet up to the height of 14 feet from the then ground level of the road for valuable consideration, being part of Municipal Holding No. 49/52, standing on old Municipal Survey Plot No. 12136 corresponding to RMS Plot No. 536 under RMS Khata No. 154 situated at Dr. Wazir Ali Road, Wad No. 3/10/11, P.S. Kotwali, District – Gaya. The aforesaid property has built up area of 579.80 sq. feet and open land measuring 413 sq. feet having dimension of 7 ft width from north to south in east and west each, East to West in north and south each 59 feet. On the said land vendor has constructed shops at the extreme southern side of her land which is single storied RCC roof structure and height of the roof is 11 feet from the plinth of the market complex whereas the plinth was at a height 3 feet from the present level of the road. According to the sale deed the vendor sold and transferred all 992.80 sq. feet on the ground floor upto a height of 14 feet from the road level containing RCC roof pucca structure for 579.80 sq. feet and 413 sq. feet open land together with road to commonly enjoy the passage contiguous north of the open land. The vendor has reserved a right to make any construction and erect any structure over the roof of the built up area with condition that vendee shall not make any objection in such construction. The vendee has further agreed that whenever he would make construction over the open land the height of the roof shall not exceed 11 feet from the ground level of the market complex and that the roof of the construction to be made over the open land shall be at the level of roof of the existing built up area. It has also been agreed between the parties that the vendee as absolute owner shall enjoy all peaceful occupation and shall be at liberty to make any alteration addition in the built up area according to his own choice and necessity. The vendor has further agreed that the vendee shall be at liberty to get ground floor mutated in his name after splitting of the holding. However, the vendor has reserved her right to make any construction & erect any structure over the roof of the built up area and the vendee agreed not to make any objection in such construction. The vendee has also agreed that whenever he would make construction over the open land, the height of the roof shall not exceed eleven feet from the ground level of the market complex and that the roof of the construction to be made over the open land shall be in the level of the roof of the built up area existing. Later on, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 filed Title Suit No. 80 of 2017/754 of 2017 contending that he has purchased the portion of 413 sq. feet on which he has made constructions and there should not be any further construction above that construction. Further, the construction of the 1st floor and 2nd floor made above that co
