Delhi HC: Property Disputes Between In-Laws and Daughter-In-Law are Not Exclusively For Family Court  ||  Delhi High Court: After Probate is Granted, A Will Does Not Require Fresh Proof under Section 68  ||  Ker HC: Periodic Replacement and Maintenance of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Included in Compensation  ||  Madras High Court: DNA Test Not Required For Mother to Donate Kidney to Her Son  ||  Delhi HC: Pre-Summoning Evidence Opportunity Must be Granted Even in Civil-Natured Criminal Cases  ||  J&K&L HC: UAPA Trials Cannot Linger and Must Proceed With Day-To-Day Hearing under NIA Act  ||  Allahabad HC: FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Not Vitiated For Lack of Pre-Registration Hearing  ||  Allahabad HC: FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Not Vitiated For Lack of Pre-Registration Hearing  ||  Delhi HC: Private Schools May Increase Fees Without Prior Approval if Declared Before Session Begins  ||  Supreme Court: Omission of Accused in Inquest Report Alone Does Not Indicate Innocence    

Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Swayam Prabha and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (17 Nov 2021)

Injunction orders cannot be passed against third parties without hearing them

MANU/SC/1074/2021

Civil

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment passed by the High Court, by which the High Court has allowed the aforesaid appeals in part and has modified the interim injunction granted by the ‘trial Court’ and restricted the injunction against alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties till the disposal of the case, the third parties have preferred the present appeals.

Before granting any injunction with respect to the properties in which the Appellants herein (proposed Defendants) are claiming right, title or interest on the basis of the development agreements or otherwise, they ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard. No injunction could have been granted against them without impleading them as Defendants and thereafter without giving them an opportunity of being heard.

It is required to be noted that, the learned trial Court dismissed the injunction application and refused injunction by observing that, some of the properties are evidently owned by the firms/trusts/companies which have not been made parties to the suit. Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court granting injunction with respect to 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties which has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Appellants and without impleading them as party- defendants in the suit by the learned trial Court, is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court granting injunction against alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties is hereby quashed and set aside. The present appeals are allowed.

Tags : INJUNCTION   THIRD PARTY   HEARING  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved