SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Code of Civil Procedure

DALPAT KAUR V. PRAHLAD SINGH AIR 1993 SC 276 (K. RAMASWAMY, J.)

DALPAT KAUR V. PRAHLAD SINGH AIR 1993 SC 276 (K. RAMASWAMY, J.)

 

FACTS

  • The parties were litigating for the 4th round concerning the same subject matter.
  • On June 14, 1979 the first appellant claimed to have entered into an agreement to purchase the residential house for of Rs. 51,000/-. He laid the suit for specific performance and the suit was decreed ex-parte. The sale deed was executed through court.
  • Round 1 - The respondent’s wife filed a suit seeking for temporary injunction from dispossession. The Trial Court rejected the application for ad interim injunction which was confirmed the High Court. Thereafter the suit was got dismissed for non-prosecution.
  • Round 2 - The appellant filed Execution Application in which the respondent filed five unsuccessful objections which was confirmed by the High Court.
  • Round 3 - Sons of the respondent filed a suit claiming the house to be a joint family property and for a declaration that the sale does not bind them and they sought for partition. They also sought for ad- interim injunction which was rejected and was confirmed by the the High Court on appeal.
  • Round 4 - The respondent filed the present suit pleading that the appellant being his counsel played fraud on him. He also sought for an interim injunction from dispossession. The Trial Court dismissed the application but on appeal the High Court by the impugned order allowed the applications and granted ad interim injunction restraining the appellants from taking possession of the property.

 

ISSUE

  • Whether the High Court was right in granting the Ad Interim injunction.

 

HELD

The High Court committed a manifest error of law and hence the appeal was allowed. The order of the High Court was set aside and that of the trial court was confirmed.

  • Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do or to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. It is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in the status quo for the time being. The grant of injunction is a discretionary relief.
  • The exercise of granting an injunction is subject to the court satisfying 3 conditions.
  • The burden is on the plaintiff by evidence adduced by affidavit or otherwise that there is “a prima facie case” in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction.
  • The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in “irreparable injury” to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages.
  • The third condition also is that “the balance of convenience” must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject-matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit.
  • If ultimately the respondent succeeds at the trial, they can be adequately compensated by awarding damages for use and occupation from the date of dispossession till date of restitution.
  • The phrases “prima facie case,” “balance of convenience” and “irreparable loss” are not rhetoric phrases for incantation, but words of width and elasticity, to meet myriad situations presented by man’s ingenuity in given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice.