2000 (2) TMI 879 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Multifariousness of the suit
2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court
3. Granting of interim relief

Detailed Analysis:

1. Multifariousness of the suit:
The dispute between the parties arose from the purchase of land for an industrial unit in Maharashtra. Despite three separate Agreements to Sell being executed, they were all part of a single transaction as per the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The court ruled that the suit was not multifarious as the transaction was treated as one, encompassing the entire land sought to be purchased by the plaintiff. The judgment highlighted that objections on multifariousness would likely be sustained if three separate suits were filed, but in this case, a single suit was deemed appropriate.

2. Territorial jurisdiction of the court:
The Defendants argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the subject matter of the dispute related to the purchase of immovable property in Maharashtra. They contended that only the court where the property was located had jurisdiction. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the cause of action had arisen in New Delhi where the MOU and Agreements to Sell were executed, along with the payments being made. The court found that since the suit was for the recovery of money and damages, without a prayer for creating a charge on the immovable property, the jurisdiction of the Delhi court was valid.

3. Granting of interim relief:
The plaintiff sought an ex parte injunction or attachment of the property in Maharashtra to prevent the Defendants from alienating it. The court dismissed this prayer, stating that the grounds for such orders were not justified. It was noted that the Defendants had not shown intent to defraud the plaintiff, and the liability for damages was still disputed between the parties. The court highlighted that no prima facie case for liability existed until a decree was passed, and the contentious issues regarding the breach of the Agreement to Sell made it unsuitable for interim relief under Order XXXIX or Order xxxvIII. Consequently, the application for interim relief was dismissed, with no costs awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of multifariousness, territorial jurisdiction, and the granting of interim relief in a detailed manner, providing clarity on the legal aspects of the dispute between the parties.