No interim injunction when prima facie case is not in favour of plaintiffs and so also balance of convenience. = Admittedly, there were earlier suits between the parties in O.S.No.25 of 2012 which has become final so also O.S.No.15 of 2002 and both the suits were held against plaintiffs-appellants herein. The subject matter of injunction petition is Ac.0.30 gts. of land, which defendant No.16 claimed through a registered gift deed executed by defendant No.7. The suit filed challenging the gift deed was also held against plaintiffs. Trial Court on a consideration of entire material including the orders and decrees in the earlier suits O.S.No.25 of 2012 and O.S.No.15 of 2002 held that prima facie case is not in favour of plaintiffs and so also balance of convenience. Trial Court recording such findings and having held that plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of temporary injunction, observed that defendants being parties to the suit if any decree is passed it is binding on them and as the relief of injunction is equitable, such relief cannot be granted to the parties who approached the Court without placing any prima facie material. 6. Considering the submissions of both parties instead of going into the merits and demerits of the case, I feel by directing trial Court to expedite trial the ends of justice would be met

CMA 69 / 2016
CMASR 2682 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
BALESAB, MAHABUBNAGAR DIST & 4 OTHERS  VSJALEEL AHMED SAUDAGAR, MAHABUBNAGAR DIST & 31 OTHERS
PET.ADV. : MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLARESP.ADV. : VIJAY KUMAR HEROOR
SUBJECT: ORDER 43DISTRICT:  MAHABUBNAGAR

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.69 of 2016
JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred against order in I.A.No.701 of 2015 in O.S.No.62 of 2015 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
2. Appellants herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.62 of 2015 and in that suit they filed I.A.No.701 of 2015 seeking temporary injunction restraining respondent Nos.5, 6 and 16 from making any constructions in Sy.No.368/AA of Marikal Village of Dhanwada Mandal, which is shown as part of ‘B’ schedule in the suit. The suit is filed for partition of suit schedule properties and also for perpetual injunction restraining defendants from alienating the suit schedule property pending the suit. Defendant Nos.5, 6 and 16 resisted the petition, but subsequently plaintiffs have withdrawn the claim against defendant No.6 only. Defendant No.5 and 16 resisted the injunction petition contending that plaintiffs approached the Court suppressing the true facts and that defendant No.16 is absolute owner of Ac.0.30 gts. of land covered by Sy.No.368/A out of total extent of Ac.2.05 gts. and the suit filed for cancellation of gift deed is decreed and it has reached finality and plaintiffs have no prima facie right in the suit properties. 
3. Trial Court on a consideration of prima facie material and contentions and rival contentions of both parties held that plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of temporary injunction by holding that defendants being parties to the proceedings are bound to abide the decree that may be passed in the suit. Now aggrieved by the dismissal of the interim injunction petition plaintiffs preferred the present miscellaneous appeal.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Admittedly, there were earlier suits between the parties in O.S.No.25 of 2012 which has become final so also O.S.No.15 of 2002 and both the suits were held against plaintiffs-appellants herein. The subject matter of injunction petition is Ac.0.30 gts. of land, which defendant No.16 claimed through a registered gift deed executed by defendant No.7. The suit filed challenging the gift deed was also held against plaintiffs. Trial Court on a consideration of entire material including the orders and decrees in the earlier suits O.S.No.25 of 2012 and O.S.No.15 of 2002 held that prima facie case is not in favour of plaintiffs and so also balance of convenience. Trial Court recording such findings and having held that plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of temporary injunction, observed that defendants being parties to the suit if any decree is passed it is binding on them and as the relief of injunction is equitable, such relief cannot be granted to the parties who approached the Court without placing any prima facie material.
6. Considering the submissions of both parties instead of going into the merits and demerits of the case, I feel by directing trial Court to expedite trial the ends of justice would be met. For these reasons, while dismissing civil miscellaneous appeal, trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit and decide the same without being influenced by any of the findings which are recorded in I.A.No.701 of 2015 so also in this appeal. 7. For these reasons, appeal is dismissed. 8. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. __________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J 18 th February 2016. mar

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515