Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Prashant RambhauPathare and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Aparna Ashok Joshi and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (16 Oct 2023)

Relief of temporary injunction is discretionary, Court would refuse it to a party who is not consistent in his/her stand

MANU/MH/4205/2023

Contract

Present Appeal is filed challenging Order passed by the trial Court rejecting application filed by Appellants/Plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction.

Whether Plaintiffs would succeed in establishing link by first succeeding in the amendment application and then in proving the contents of amended plaint, is something which would be clear at the end of the Trial. As on the date of the passing of the impugned order, Plaintiffs miserably failed to make out any prima facie case for grant of any temporary injunction.

Relief of temporary injunction is a discretionary relief. The Court would refuse the equitable relief of temporary injunction to a party who is not consistent in his/her stand. Plaintiff first pleaded that the amount of Rs. 1,73,00,000was paid towards purchase of suit flats and shop. Now in amendment he wants to suggest that the payment was towards purchase of another property and the agreement for sale of suit flats and shop was executed by way of 'adjustment'. When Plaintiff took a calculated chance of waiting for over 4 years for execution of agreement for sale and filed the Suit only after execution of Deed of Assignment dated 16 May 2018, the question that arises is whether Defendants (and especially the subsequent purchasers) can be made to suffer prejudice indefinitely till Plaintiffs establish their varying stands.

Grant of temporary injunction puts a fetter on right of Defendants (especially the subsequent purchasers). On the other hand, refusal of injunction would place Plaintiffs in the same position as they were since 2013 after alleged payment of Rs. 1,73,00,000. It must also be borne in mind that Plaintiffs have also made a prayer for refund of amount of consideration along with interest and compensation. Since Plaintiffs do not appear to be consistent in respect of their stand, the discretionary relief of temporary injunction could not have been granted in their favour by the Trial Court. The trial Court has rightly rejected application for temporary injunction. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : INJUNCTION   GRANT   DISCRETION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved