KISHORSINH RATANSINH JADEJA versus MARUTI CORP. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 06-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 5 S.C.R. 527 
KISHORSINH RATANSINH JADEJA 
A 
v. 
MARUTI CORP. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2009) 
! 
APRIL 6, 2009 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
Or.39 rr 1 and 2 -
Interim injunction -
Grant of -
c 
Principles to be considered - High Court in an appeal arising 
out of a suit for specific performance of contract directing that 
any alienation of property would be subject to decision of 
appeal - By subsequent interim orders staying sale of plots 
;. 
and restraining the purchasers from raising any construction 
D 
on the suit land - Held: The earlier order having been passed 
. on principle of /is pendens, as enshrined in s.52 of Transfer 
of Property Act, and transferees having obtained plots when 
there was no injunction against owners, the subsequent orders 
are not sustainable -
The subsequent cryptic orders were 
E 
passed in great haste without giving the owners an opportunity 
of hearing and without giving any reason for passing the same 
- Orders were passed ignoring the basic principles required 
to be considered while passing an order under Or.39 rr. 1 and 
I 
2 - Besides, High Court did not take into consideration that 
the suit was filed after a long silence of 19 years -
The 
F 
subsequent interim orders in question passed by High Court 
set aside - High Court would decide the appeal expeditiously 
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.52 - Equity. 
In the instant appeals, it was contended for the G 
appellant and other joint owners of the suit land, as also 
' 
for the transferees that in the first appeal, the High Court-
having passed an interim order dated 29.2.2008 to the 
effect that if the properties in question were dealt with in 
527 
H 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
A any way, the same would be subject to the decision in 
the appeal, there was no bar to alienation of the property; 
that in the circumstances, 280 plots were sold and the 
purchasers started constructions on their respective 
plots; that the High Court, therefore, erred in passing the 
B subsequent orders, namely, order dated 22.4.2008 and 
7.5.2008 and restraining the owners from selling the land 
as also stalling the constructions, without giving an 
opportunity of hearing. 
c 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. It is well established, that while passing an 
interim order of injunction under Or. 39 rr. 1 and 2 CPC, 
the Court is required to consider three basic principles, 
namely, (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience 
D and inconvenience; and (iii) irreparable loss and injury. 
None of these principles have been considered by the 
High Court while passing the second and third interim 
orders dated 22nd April, 2008 and 7th May, 2008, nor has 
the High Court taken into account the long silence on the 
E part of respondent No.1-Corporation in filing a suit after 
19 years. [Para 22] [541-B-E] 
1.2. Having passed an order on 29th February, 2008, 
based on the principle of lis pendens as enshrined in s.52 
of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Division Bench 
F of the High Court in its order dated 22nd April, 2008, 
observed that when the first appeal was admitted and the 
matterin dispute as regards the property in question was 
sub-judice, the properties in question should not be sold 
and passed an order which was contrary to the initial 
G order dated 29.2.2008. [Para 21] [540-H; 541-A-B] 
1.3. Again the order dated 7th May, 2008, directing 
' 
that no construction be raised on the lands in dispute, 
which has bearing on the 280 transferees who were in 
KISHORSINH RATANSINH JADEJA v. MARUTI CORP. & 529 
ORS. 
the process of raising their constructions having 
A 
~ 
obtained the plots at a point of time when no injunction 
! ' 
against land owners was in force, was passed in great 
haste without even giving the owners of the lands an 
opportunity of contesting the application. In fact, the 
. ) 
application was disposed of by a cryptic order which 
B 
does not even contain any reason for passing the same. 
The order was passed without even taking into 
consideration that the transferees would be adversely 
affected by such an order. [Para 18 and 19] [540-B-F] 
Manda/i Ranganna & others vs. T. Ramachandra (2008) c 
11 sec 1, referred to. 
1.4. While passing the interim order dated 7th May, 
2008, the High Court ought to have considered the effect 
.,, 
which its order would have on the 280 transferees to 
D 
whom some portion

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