9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Temporary injunction restraining interference with possession 2. Validity of the decree in Title Suit No. 494/96 3. Allegation of fraud and time-barred suit 4. Execution of the decree 5. Prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Temporary injunction restraining interference with possession: The appeal challenges the order of temporary injunction dated 3.11.2005, which restrained the appellants from interfering with the respondent's possession over the suit land. The trial court's order effectively halted the execution of a decree passed in an earlier suit (T.S. No. 494/96), which had been affirmed by higher courts, including the Supreme Court. 2. Validity of the decree in Title Suit No. 494/96: The appellants had initially filed T.S. No. 494/96 for declaration of right, title, and interest, and for recovery of possession, which was decreed in their favor. This decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court, and the respondent's Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thus, the decree had attained finality. 3. Allegation of fraud and time-barred suit: The respondent filed a new suit (T.S. No. 202/05) alleging that the decree in T.S. No. 494/96 was obtained fraudulently as the suit was time-barred and the court lacked jurisdiction. The respondent argued that the suit should have been filed within three years under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, as it was a suit for declaration following possession declared under Section 145 CrPC. However, the trial court did not address the limitation issue, which the respondent claimed constituted fraud. 4. Execution of the decree: The respondent attempted to delay the execution of the decree by filing various applications and objections, including under Section 47 and Section 151 CPC, all of which were rejected. The respondent also sought to transfer the execution proceedings, which was dismissed by the High Court. Despite these efforts, the execution of the decree was stayed temporarily by the trial court's injunction order. 5. Prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss: The court reiterated that granting temporary injunctions is discretionary and requires a strong prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and proof of irreparable loss. The court found that the respondent failed to make out a strong prima-facie case, as the decree in T.S. No. 494/96 had already been affirmed by higher courts. The balance of convenience favored the appellants, who had a lawful decree, and the injunction would cause them irreparable harm by preventing the execution of the decree. Conclusion: The court concluded that the respondent's suit (T.S. No. 202/05) was a tactic to delay the execution of the lawful decree obtained by the appellants. The trial court's order of injunction was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid by the respondent. The executing court was directed to execute the decree as passed in T.S. No. 494/96 without going beyond it.
|
