AJAY MOHAN AND ORS. versus H.N. RAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 12-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJAY MOHAN AND ORS. 
v. 
~ 
H.N. RAI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Injunction: 
Suit for permanent injunction - Defendants claiming right 
c over suit property based on sale agreement- Civil Court refused to 
grant order of injunction on the ground that no prima facie case 
made out - Appeal thereagainst withdrawn - Thereafter plaintiff 
prayed for amendment of plaint and also sought interim order of 
injunction during pendency of said application - Rejected by Civil 
D Court-Affirmed by High Court on ground that proposed amendment 
fell short of grant of declaration that sale agreement was null and 
void - Correctness of - Held: Correct as plaintiff had not brought 
y 
out any new circumstances warranting grant of injunction in his 
favour - Only because further prayer was made upon amending the 
E plaint, same itself would not bring situational change warranting 
application of mind afresh by Civil Court. 
Interim order: 
Suit for permanent injunction - Civil Court refased to grant 
F order of injunction on the ground that no prima facie case made out 
-Appeal thereagainst sought to be withdrawn - High Court allowed 
plaintiff to withdraw and also directed parties to maintain status 
quo for two weeks but no reason was assigned to pass such interim 
order - Held: High Court had no jurisdiction to pass such an interim 
G order - Once appeal was permitted to be withdrawn, Court became 
functus officio. 
The Plaintiffs-appellants became owners of the suit land by 
way of gift deed. Defendants-respondents claimed their ri:ght and 
possession over the suit land in terms of sale agreement purported 
H 
298 
~·· 
AJAY MOHAN AND ORS. v.H.N.RAIANDORS. 
299 
to be executed by appellants. Various proceedings were initiated A 
>-....( 
before the Revenue Courts in regard to inclusion of name of 
respondents in the revenue records before filing the instant suit 
by the appellants before the Civil Court for permanent injunction 
restraining the respondents from creating any right over the suit 
land, on the basis of the revenue entries and from interfering with B 
their possession. In the said suit, appellants filed a notice of 
motion. The Civil Court by order dated 13.10.2006 refused to 
·-( 
grant an order of injunction on the ground that no prima facie 
case was made out. The appellants filed appeal thereagainst in 
the High Court. The said appeal however was withdrawn stating C 
that they would move the trial Court for amendment of plaint. The 
High Court allowed the appellants to withdraw the appeal and 
also directed the parties to maintain status quo for a period of two 
weeks. Thereafter, chamber summon was taken by the appellants 
wherein prayer was made not only for the amendment of the D 
plaint but also seeking an interim order of injunction during the 
pendency of the said application was also prayed for. 
The prayer for interim relief was rejected by Civil Court 
opining that the earlier order dated 13.10.2006 became final. E 
Against this order of rejection the appellant filed appeal before 
High Court wherein it was held that the proposed amendment fell 
short of relief of declaration that the sale agreement was null and 
void and was to be set aside and upheld the judgment of Civil 
Court. An SLP was filed before this Court against the said order F 
which was disposed of on 2.2.2007 with the direction that until 
amendment application is disposed of, no third party interest 
should be created. 
On 28.2.2007, application for amendment was allowed. A 
notice of motion for grant of injunction was again taken out which G 
was dismissed. High Court upheld the said order. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. It is a trite law that the principles of res judicata 
apply in different stages of the same proceedings. The entire 
, 
)._ 
claim of the plaintiff was based on their claim of possession of the 
lands in suit. Defendants, on the other hand, claimed their right, 
title, interest and possession on the basis of the purported 
B agreement for sale. Whether possession had been delivered to 
them in part performance of agreement of sale or not is essentially 
a question of fact. Genuineness or otherwise of the said agreement 
also involves determination of a disputed question. [Para 15] 
)• 
[309-G; 310-B] 
c 
Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Anr. 
AIR (1960)

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.