9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Gate, Delhi for the last about 35-40 years. Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 are residing in House No.H-32, Kailash Colony, New Delhi whereas Defendant No.1 residing in N-152, First Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. 3. Plaintiffs have claimed that Plaintiff No.2 is the owner of Front Portion of the First Floor consisting of drawing/dinning, one bed room, attached bathroom, kitchen and servant quarter on the top along with 1/6th undivided, indivisible and impartaible ownership rights in the plot of land measuring 311 Sq. yds., bearing No.H-32, Kailash Colony, New Delhi; the property in dispute. Whereas Defendant No.2 is in possession of the rear portion of the first floor of the said property. Defendants have been assisting Plaintiff No.1 in his business. There have been disputes inter se Plaintiff No.2 and the Defendants and their family. 4. Case of the Plaintiffs is that on 10.05.2010, Defendants conspired and started making unreasonable demands and asked Plaintiff No.1 to partition the business as well as the residential houses to which Plaintiff No.1 politely refused. In the evening Defendants allegedly used filthy language against the Plaintiffs and their daughter and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e front portion of the first floor of the suit property. Defendant No.1 had executed a Sale Deed in favour of Plaintiff No.2 and Plaintiff No.2 in turn had executed a Will in favour of Defendant No.2. Despite these documents Plaintiff No.2 was never in physical possession of front portion of the first floor property. 8. It is submitted by the counsel for the Plaintiffs that dispute arose inter se the parties when Plaintiff No.2 asked Defendant No.2 to temporarily provide her a room for the marriage of her daughter to be used as a guest room to which Defendant no.2 refused. 9. Thus, prima facie, it is clear that Plaintiffs were not in possession of front portion of the first floor of the house at the time when the suit was filed and ex-parte ad-interim injunction was obtained. This is a concealment of fact by the Plaintiffs. Rather, Plaintiffs have tried to mislead the Court by alleging that they are in possession of front portion of the property in suit and apprehended threat of dispossession at the hands of Defendant No.2. 10. Prima facie it seems that Plaintiff no.1 made arrangement for all his children as he provided first floor of House No. N-152, First Floor, Greate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn. Sometime, there are situations wherein the Defendant may use the suit property in such a manner that the situation becomes irretrievable. In such circumstances, Court should grant interim relief. However, it is not appropriate for a court to hold a mini trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction. Court has to assess the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record to find out if the ingredients/principles governing the grant of temporary injunction are made out or not. 14. In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd ., AIR 1999 SC 3105, The Apex Court crystallized the conditions which ought to weigh with the court hearing the application or petition for the grant of injunctions as below:- (i) Extent of damages being an adequate remedy; (ii) Protect the plaintiff's interest for violation of his rights though however having regard to the injury that may be suffered by the defendants by reason therefor ; (iii) The court while dealing with the matter ought not to ignore the factum of strength of one party's case being stronger than the others; (iv) No fixed rules or notions ought to be had in the matter of g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. It is the duty of the party asking for an injunction to bring to the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to have injunction and it is not an excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any facts which he has omitted to bring forward. Where Plaintiff does not act bona fidely and does not put every material facts before the Court, the Court is within its inherent power to refuse to grant him injunction, even though there might be facts upon which injunction might be granted. Conduct of the Plaintiff is very material in bringing the case and disclosing the facts before the Court. Plaintiff is required to make fullest possible disclosure of all material facts within his knowledge to the Court and if he does not make that fullest possible disclosure, he cannot obtain any advantage from the proceedings and is liable to be deprived of any advantage he might have already obtained by means of the order which has thus wrongly been obtained by him by concealment of material facts. 19. The preface of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Dalip Singh vs. State of U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he peaceful possession of the front portion of the first floor of the property in suit, by misrepresentation of facts. Even if there are facts which prima facie entitle the Plaintiffs for a discretionary relief of injunction but as they have not acted with bonafides and have not put other material facts before the Court and have been successful in obtaining ex-parte interim injunction in their favour by concealment of facts, they are not entitled to any injunction as prayed. Plaintiffs cannot be allowed to take advantage from the proceedings for their own act of concealment of material facts within their knowledge. Prima facie, alleged threat of dispossession of the Plaintiffs from the suit premises does not exist as they were never in possession of the same. It is the Plaintiffs, who in the garb of an interlocutory order, intended to enter into the demised premises to take physical possession of the same. 22. Under the circumstances, it is Defendant No.2 who will suffer inconvenience if he is dis-lodged from the premises in dispute, may be one room as suggested during the course of arguments and not the Plaintiffs who are in complete possession of ground floor of the premises b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
