9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1971 by the competent officer and handed over to the corporation. However, the earlier 24 appellants/tenants who entered into leave and licence agreements with the Corporation were allowed to get into possession. After the expiry of the period of leave and licence, proceedings were p initiated for eviction of the appellants and an order in that behalf came to be passed. Calling in question that order of eviction, they went in appeal and writ petition but were unsuccessful. Ultimately, this Court affirmed the order of eviction of the appellants. Subsequently, they filed Civil Suit No. 590/73 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Poona and sought perpetual injunction from dispossession and for ad interim injunction. The Civil Judge F by his order dated 27.4.1973 refused to grant ad interim injunction. The Joint Judge, as stated earlier, on appeal under Section 43(r) C.P.C. allowed the appeal and granted ad interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The High Court in the Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution, by its impugned order dated 20.12.1978 set aside the appellate order p and confirmed that of the Civil Judge. Thus this appeal, by special leav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appropriate steps or to provide alternative shops. 5. Shri Wad, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand contended that the need for widening the road still subsists and that the Corporation having taken possession of the building and the order of eviction passed against the appellant having been allowed to become final by disposing the S.L.P. by this Court, the appellate Judge had committed palpable error of law in interfering with the order. He also contended that the Civil Suit itself is not maintainable as being barred by the provisions in the Corporation Act and C.P.C. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the question arises A whether the appellant had shown that there was a prima facie case, triable issue and balance of convenience for granting ad interim injunction pending the suit. It is an admitted position that after the award was made by the Collector, possession was taken. Thereafter, the appellants entered into leave and licence with the Corporation. On expiry thereof, the Corporation had initiated proceedings for ejectment of the appellants and the order of ejectment had become final when the SLP was dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by men's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances and should always be hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. The court would be circumspect before granting the injunction and look to the conduct of the party, the probable injury to either party and whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if injunction is refused. The existence of prima fade right and infraction of the enjoyment of him property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the court would result in irreparable injury to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, at page 56 in para 30.01, it is staled that an injunction will only be granted to prevent the breach of an obligation (that is a duty enforceable by law) existing in favour of the applicant who must have a personal interest in the matter. In the first place, therefore, an interference by injunction is founded on the existence of a legal right, an applicant must be able to show a fair prima fade case in support of the title which he asserts . At page 80 in para 33.02, it is further stated that if the court be of opinion that looking to these principles the case is not one for which an injunction is a fitting remedy, it has a discretion to grant damages in lieu of an injunction. The grounds upon which this discretion to grant damages in lieu of an injunction should be exercised, have been subject of discussion in several reported Indian cases . At page 83, is stated that the court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction in those cases where pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. The expression adequate relief is not defined, but it is probably used to mean - such a compensation as would, though not in specie, in effect place the plaintiffs in the same positio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; secondly, whether this harm outweighs any irreparable harm that the defendant would suffer from an injunction; thirdly, the parties' relative prospects of success on the merits; fourthly, any public interest involved in the decision. The central objective of interlocutory injunctions should therefore be seen as reducing the risk that rights will be irreparably harmed during the inevitable delay of litigation . 13. In Injunctions by David Bean, 1st Edn, at page 22, it is stated that if the plaintiff obtains an interlocutory injunction, but subsequently the case goes to trial and he fails to obtain a perpetual order, the defendant will meanwhile have been restrained unjustly and will be entitled to damages for any loss he has sustained. The practice has therefore grown up, in almost every case where interlocutory injunction is to be granted, of requiring the plaintiff to undertake to pay any damages subsequently found due to the defendant as compensation if the injunction cannot be justified at trial. The undertaking may be required of the plaintiff in appropriate cases in that behalf. In Joyce on Injunctions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing ex debito justitiae mitigating the damage suffered by the defendant by the act of the court in granting injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the action complained of in the suit It is common knowledge that injunction is invariably sought for in laying the suit in a court of lowest pecuniary jurisdiction even when the claims are much larger than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of first instance, may be, for diverse reasons. Therefore, the pecuniary jurisdiction is not and should not stand an impediment for the court of first instance in determining damages as the part of the adjudication and pass a decree in that behalf without relegating the parties to a further suit for damages. This procedure would act as a check on abuse of the process of the court and adequately compensate the damages or injury suffered by the defendant by act of court at the behest of the plaintiff. 15. Public purpose of removing traffic congestion was sought to be served by acquiring the building for widening the road. By orders of injunction, for 24 years the public purpose, was delayed. As a consequence execution of the project has been delayed and the costs now stand mou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
