Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

Mr. Surendra Subhedar Singh vs. Assistant Municipal Commissioner, MCGM - (High Court of Bombay) (16 Feb 2023)

In the absence of any legal rights being prima facie shown, a relief of a temporary injunction cannot be granted



Present is an appeal filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff assailing an order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Judge, whereby a notice of motion filed by the Appellant/plaintiff praying for a temporary injunction against the Respondent/Municipal Corporation ("MCGM") has been dismissed. The suit in question came to be filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff being aggrieved by a notice issued by the Respondent ("MCGM") .

In the suit in question, before the City Civil Court, the MCGM contested the claim of the Appellant/Plaintiff by filing a reply affidavit and by annexing all the relevant documents to show that the ownership of the land is of the MCGM. The City Survey Record which shows the name of the MCGM to be the owner of such land, was also placed on record of the City Civil Court by the MCGM.

The Appellant had miserably failed to make out a prima facie case not only on the ownership of the suit land but also failing to show any other legal right to occupy the land through his stall owners. The Appellant's categorical case in the plaint praying for the relief in the suit is as also for the interlocutory relief of a temporary injunction is based on ownership of the land, however without any material and/or semblance of a case to support such right. In the absence of any legal rights being prima facie shown by the Appellant, a relief of a temporary injunction could never have been granted, as rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge, by the impugned order.

The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is a well reasoned order, it has taken into consideration all the relevant documents which were sufficient to consider the rights of the Appellant/ Plaintiff to seek such reliefs so as to come to a prima-facie conclusion that no rights are shown by the appellant in the land in question. None of the documents relied by the appellant prima facie established a legal title of the appellant over the land. The land was required for road widening and construction of storm water drain which was a public project. The claim of title of the appellant/ plaintiff over the suit land was not based on any registered deed of conveyance The documents as relied by the appellant were not the documents of title. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge has rightly come to a conclusion that prima-facie case for grant of temporary injunction was not made out by the appellant.

The Respondent is also correct in pointing out that the temporary injunction which was sought by the Appellant was in respect of a public project and certainly considering the provisions of Section 41(h)(i) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Appellant/Plaintiff was not entitled for any relief of a temporary injunction. The learned trial Judge has rightly dismissed the notice of motion as filed by the appellant. No case is made out for interference of the present appeal. Appeal dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved