2005 (9) TMI 689 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit for mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction.
2. Legal status of the defendants post the expiry of the license.
3. Reasonableness of the delay in filing the suit.
4. Requirement of formulating substantial questions of law in a second appeal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit for Mandatory Injunction and Prohibitory Injunction:
The appellants challenged the legality of the Kerala High Court's judgment, which held that their suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction was not maintainable. The High Court ruled that the appropriate remedy for the appellants was to file a suit for recovery of possession rather than an injunction since the respondents were considered trespassers after the license expired. The High Court emphasized that injunction is an equitable remedy, while recovery of possession is a legal remedy.

2. Legal Status of the Defendants Post the Expiry of the License:
The trial court and the First Appellate Court found that the defendants became trespassers upon the death of Mathew, the original licensee, and the expiry of the license. The High Court, however, noted that the occupation of an ex-licensee does not automatically become hostile or trespasser-like immediately after the license ends. The High Court held that for a suit for mandatory injunction to be maintainable, it must be filed promptly and without delay.

3. Reasonableness of the Delay in Filing the Suit:
The High Court found that there was an unexplained delay in filing the suit, which was initiated 19 months after the death of the original licensee. The appellants argued that they allowed time for the defendants to wind up their business to avoid inconvenience. However, the High Court deemed this delay unreasonable. The Supreme Court, while considering the appeal, emphasized that the concept of "reasonable time" depends on the circumstances of each case. The Court referred to the explanation of "reasonable time" as provided in legal dictionaries and previous judgments, noting that it should be as soon as circumstances permit and necessary under the circumstances.

4. Requirement of Formulating Substantial Questions of Law in a Second Appeal:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to formulate any substantial question of law while reversing the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, which is a mandatory requirement under Sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court found this omission significant and contrary to legal mandates.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment was unsustainable. The explanation for the delay provided by the plaintiffs was found plausible, and the defendants had not specifically raised the issue of unreasonable delay before the trial court or the first appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the question of reasonable time required factual adjudication and could not be raised for the first time in a second appeal.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal without any order as to costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of filing suits with promptitude and the need for courts to adhere to procedural requirements, such as formulating substantial questions of law in second appeals.