9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Civil Suit for possession of property and injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. - Granting of temporary injunction by trial court. - Appeal allowed by District Judge with conditions on alienation and construction. - Revision filed against District Judge's order. - High Court's dismissal of revision based on oral undertaking by respondent's counsel. - Contention on protecting status quo during litigation. - Lack of prima facie case by appellant. - Justification of impugned orders by lower appellate court and High Court. - Consideration of irreparable loss or damage in changing nature of property. - Setting aside of lower appellate court and High Court orders by Supreme Court. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard a Civil Suit for possession of property with an injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The trial court granted a temporary injunction as requested by the appellant. The respondent appealed to the District Judge, who allowed the appeal with conditions regarding alienation and construction, subject to the law of lis pendens. A revision against this order was dismissed by the High Court based on an oral undertaking by the respondent's counsel, ensuring no alienation and construction at risk and cost. The appellant argued for protecting the status quo during litigation, while the respondent contended that allowing the property to remain unchanged would cause irreparable loss. The Supreme Court noted that unless a party proves irreparable loss, courts should not permit changing the property's nature, including alienation. The lower appellate court questioned the prima facie case, while the High Court did not. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no grounds for allowing construction or alienation, setting aside the lower appellate court and High Court orders, and restoring the trial court's order. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the lack of extraordinary circumstances to permit changes to the property without establishing irreparable loss or damage.
|
