An injunction is a prohibitive writ issued by a court of equity at the request of a party complainant, directed to a party defendant in the action, or to a party made a defendant for that purpose, forbidding the latter from doing some act, or permitting his servants or agents to do some act, which he is threatening or attempting to commit, or restraining him in the continuation thereof, such act being unjust, inequitable, and injurious to the complainant.
The present judgments state the Supreme Court’s stand on both temporary and permanent injunctions. They elaborate upon the situations and circumstances in which an injunction can be granted. Primarily, the judgments talk about the circumstances in which a person can obtain an injunction against the defendant party with or without seeking prayer for declaration.
Is it possible to pass injunction orders against third parties without affording them the opportunity of being heard?
Is a suit for permanent injunction in respect of a wakf property maintainable in a civil court or not?
Can a plaintiff can seek a permanent injunction without seeking prayer for declaration when their possession of the property is ‘admitted and established?’
The Supreme Court has held that in a suit where the plaintiffs file a suit for declaration and subsequently apply for an injunction, the injunction cannot be granted until the third parties who have a share in the suit property have been given the opportunity of being heard.
The Supreme Court held that the Waqf Tribunal will have jurisdiction not only when the property is disputed waqf property but also when it is an admitted waqf property.
The Supreme Court held that if the plaintiff files a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants who are disturbing the peaceful possession as well as the plaintiff’s enjoyment of the suit property, there is no need for them to seek prayer for declaration first.
However, the Supreme Court has also held that such a suit without any claim for declaration is maintainable only when the plaintiff’s title over the property is not in dispute.
Further, even if the plaintiff claims to be in possession and it is later determined after the trial that he was not in possession on the date of the suit, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is likely to be dismissed as unmaintainable.
Supreme Court of India
Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. vs Swayam Prabha on 17 November, 2021
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6779-6780 OF 2021
Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. …Appellant
Versus
Swayam Prabha & Others …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6787-6788 OF 2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6789-6790 OF 2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6791-6792 OF 2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6793-6794 OF 2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6781-6782 OF 2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6785-6786 OF 2021
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6783-6784 OF 2021
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 22.09.2020 in M.F.A. No. 1638/2020 and M.F.A. No. 1849/2020 (CPC), by which the High Court has allowed the aforesaid appeals in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2021.11.17 part and has modified the interim injunction granted by the learned XIV 17:02:23 IST Reason:
Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, CCH 28 (hereinafter referred to
as the learned ‘trial Court’) passed in IA Nos. 1, 18, 22 and 24 in O.S. No. 4709/2019 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.
2. That respondent nos.1,22,23 and 24 herein have instituted O.S. No. 4709/2019 before the learned trial Court seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs and defendants 18 & 19 (respondent nos. 19 & 20 herein) are entitled to their mother Laxmi Devi’s 1/7 th share in the total plaint schedule properties and consequently prayed for a decree for partition and separate possession. They have also further sought a declaration that 2015 Settlement Deed is void ab-initio.
2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the plaint schedule properties consist of number of properties ranging from A1 to A40 in the said suit. The original plaintiffs filed IA No. 1 in OS No. 4709/2019 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction qua the suit schedule properties. The learned trial Court initially granted ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from alienating and creating any charge and third party interest upon the suit schedule properties to the extent of the plaintiffs share, till the next date of hearing of the interim injunction application. That by order dated 26.09.2019, the learned trial Court dismissed IA No.1 in OS No. 4709/2019 and refused to grant an interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, inter alia, holding that some of the suit schedule properties are evidently owned by the firms/trusts/companies which entities have not been made parties to the suit.
2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court refusing to grant injunction, one of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4709/2019 preferred M.F.A. No. 1638/2020 before the High Court. The other plaintiffs also filed a separate appeal being M.F.A. No. 1849/2020 (CPC). By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the said appeals and has modified the order passed by the learned trial Court in the interim injunction application and has directed to issue restraint order qua the defendants against the alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties till disposal of the case. The High Court has also passed an order insofar as the activity such as construction, improvements, whether fresh or modification, are conducted over the schedule properties, the party doing so shall be doing it at his risk and shall not be entitled to claim equity at the end.
Download complete judgement by clicking on the button given below >>
The judgments discuss civil laws. Under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there are certain cases where the court may grant a temporary injunction.
These include:
In the context of a property dispute, if the property in question is at risk of being squandered, damaged, alienated, or sold illegally by a party to the litigation.
If a person threatened or showed intent to remove or dispose of his property with the goal of defrauding his creditors.
If the defendant threatens to depose or hurt the plaintiff in connection with the suit property.
If the defendant violated the peace or breached a contract.
If the court believes it would be in the best interests of justice to do so.
A lawyer is knowledgeable about both the procedural and substantive parts of the law. A civil lawyer will be able to advise you on whether or not an injunction is a correct remedy or relief for the case. They may further help with the steps involved in obtaining the injunction. Even if one party is requesting an injunction and you, as the defending party, are opposed to it, you will need legal guidance in order to present your case in court. If the injunction you are seeking has an impact on your business or source of revenue, you should definitely seek legal advice from a civil lawyer.