Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Ramakant Ambalal Choksi – Appellant
Versus
Harish Ambalal Choksi – Respondent
Key Points: - The appellate court must not substitute its discretion for the trial court’s unless the trial court’s discretion was perverse, arbitrary, or failed to apply settled law; review should consider whether the trial court acted within principles governing interim injunctions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court reiterates the three core conditions for granting a temporary injunction: prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, with the need for sound judicial discretion in pendency of the suit (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that appellate interference should be limited and not based on extraneous considerations; the High Court erred by materially substituting its view and considering pending litigations and alleged malafides instead of per se perversity in the trial court’s order (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision clarifies that lis pendens under Section 52 TP Act can affect transfers of the suit property during litigation, and interim relief does not automatically foreclose subsequent transfers when pending; transfers may be constrained or scrutinized at final adjudication (!) (!) (!) .
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dated 08.12.2022 in Appeal from Order No. 86/2022 by which the High Court allowed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondents herein and thereby set aside the order of injunction which was passed by the trial court below Exhibit-5 in favour of the appellants herein.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also looked into the materials on record.
SUIT PROCEEDINGS
4. The appellants herein, who are the original plaintiffs before the trial court, instituted the Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2019 for declaration, cancellation of registered sale deed bearing no. 2863 dated 23.03.2018 and permanent injunction against the respondents herein, that is, the original defendants. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application below Exhibit-5 for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature in the original suit.
6. Plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 respectively are real brothers and plaintiff nos. 4 to 6 respectively are their
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of such orders.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
The court upheld the grant of a temporary injunction, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in property disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
Power of Attorney has certain limitations.
The court emphasized that failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations justifies the denial of interim injunctions in specific performance cases.
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
