180+ Lawyers are online 
Injunction in another court despite a status quo already in force
24-Jul-2023 (In Property Law)
Greetings, I have a question regarding temporary injunction. We have a dispute with my neighbor regarding building bye laws. He is now in KAT challenging the confirmation order and I am also a respondent there. He has filed a false case of encroachment against me in civil court and is asking for a temporary and permanent injunction against me. in KAT a status quo is already in force on all parties which he has taken himself. given the existing status quo order on the same schedule property and parties involved, is it lawful to seek an injunction in another court for the same property and people?Thanks
These sort of issues arises when two forums(KAT & Civil Court) hears dispute between same parties and on the same cause of action. You should have filed objections to stay the Subsequent Suit as it is against the prinicple of re sub-judice. It is not only wastes time but leads to conflicting decisions.
As far as i know KAT is appellate authority which decides dipute arising out of orders & judgements of Revenue Courts(AC/DC court).
With limited facts, i can only say that the KAT did not have jurisdiction to try a civil suit of permanent injunction.
As far as i know KAT is appellate authority which decides dipute arising out of orders & judgements of Revenue Courts(AC/DC court).
With limited facts, i can only say that the KAT did not have jurisdiction to try a civil suit of permanent injunction.
Helpful?
15+
15+
Adv. Jamal Sait
Bangalore | 400+ Answers
CONTACT NOW
When status quo can be granted?
When ordering Status-Quo the court must specify in unambiguous terms what Status-Quo means. He must specify whether Plaintiff or defendant are in possession. A situation of ambiguity and doubt can have dangerous consequences. Such an order is not appropriate. 29 Jun 2023
What is the status quo law in India?
Status quo is basically ordered to prevent third party interest in property. This is in relation to leasing, selling or mortgaging the property, giving it away, willing to do so, or doing any act to transfer an interest in property in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act.
Could you specify the nature of confirmation ordered that the KAT has passed?
Also, the doctrine of res judicata provides that a matter that has been adjudicated in a previous action cannot be litigated again. This is mainly to protect an individual from the harassment of having to litigate the same cause of action against the same party more than once.
Although, one of the prerequisites of applying this doctrine under Section 11 of CPC is when a final order has been passed by the court. However, as per various Supreme Court judgements, the doctrine also applies after a court passes an interlocutory judgment.
The Supreme Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Vijaysinh Amarsinh & Co. (1994) observed that "It is now well settled that principle of res judicata applies to orders at different stages of the trial. Even as regards interlocutory orders such as stay of injunction it is well established that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to apply for some relief by successive applications when such relief is already rejected by the Court."
The same has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi and Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (2013) wherein the Court observed that "the scope of the principle of res judicata is not confined to what is contained in Section 11 but is of more general application is also not in dispute. Again, res judicata could be as much applicable to different stages of the same suit as to findings on issues in different suits."
Hope this helps.
Also, the doctrine of res judicata provides that a matter that has been adjudicated in a previous action cannot be litigated again. This is mainly to protect an individual from the harassment of having to litigate the same cause of action against the same party more than once.
Although, one of the prerequisites of applying this doctrine under Section 11 of CPC is when a final order has been passed by the court. However, as per various Supreme Court judgements, the doctrine also applies after a court passes an interlocutory judgment.
The Supreme Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Vijaysinh Amarsinh & Co. (1994) observed that "It is now well settled that principle of res judicata applies to orders at different stages of the trial. Even as regards interlocutory orders such as stay of injunction it is well established that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to apply for some relief by successive applications when such relief is already rejected by the Court."
The same has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi and Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (2013) wherein the Court observed that "the scope of the principle of res judicata is not confined to what is contained in Section 11 but is of more general application is also not in dispute. Again, res judicata could be as much applicable to different stages of the same suit as to findings on issues in different suits."
Hope this helps.
Helpful?
12+
12+
Adv. Prerana R Saraf
Mumbai | 25+ Answers
CONTACT NOW
Disclaimer: The above query and its response is NOT a legal opinion in any way whatsoever as this is based on the information shared by the person posting the query at lawrato.com and has been responded by one of the Divorce Lawyers at lawrato.com to address the specific facts and details.
Connect with top Property lawyers for your specific legal issue
No Comments! Be the first one to comment.
"lawrato.com has handpicked some of the best Legal Experts in the country to help you get practical Legal Advice & help."
