MAKERS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. versus M. VISVESVARAYA INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 14-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 109 
MAKERS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. 
v. 
M. ViSVESVARAYA INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND 
DEVELOPMENT CENTRE 
(Civil Appeal No. 9709 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 14, 2011. 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JASTI CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Or.39, rr. 1 and 2 - Temporary injunction - Grant of -
Basic principles to be considered - Explained. 
A 
B 
c 
0. 39 - rr. 1 and 2 - Prayer for temporary injunction -
Agreement between the parties stated to have been entered 
into for construction of a hotel and for grant of its lease - After D 
construction was raised upto 80' dispute between parties - Suit 
for mandatory injunction - Temporary injunction restraining 
the defendant from obstructing the construction etc. prayed -
Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court granting 
limited interim order restraining the defendant from in any 
E 
manner selling, transferring or creating third party interests in 
the suit property - HELD: The single Judge was fully justified 
in granting the limited relief - The Division Bench was also 
fully justified in confirming the said limited order - As rightly 
obseNed by the single Judge as well as Division Bench, if 
F 
other reliefs were granted and the plaintiff was allowed to 
proceed with the construction on the suit land, in the event of 
dismissal of suit, the defendant cannot use the land in a 
different manner with the structure without undertaking an 
enormous exercise of demolishing the same. 
G 
On 4.8.2007, the appellant in C.A. No. 9709 of 2011 
filed a suit in the City Civil Court for injunction against the 
respondent. The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that 
109 
H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A on 10.11.1980 and agreement was entered into between 
the parties for construction of a composite hotel complex 
and for granting the plaintiff would be granted lease of 
the Hotel (exclusive of the Convention and Exhibition 
Centre) in favour of the plaintif-appellant for 60 years with 
B an option of renewal of lease. Pursuant to the agreement, 
the respondent put the appellant in possession of the suit 
land on 16.07.1990. Since the appellant could not 
complete the work due to disputes and differences, the 
respondent, on 31.07.2007, affixed a notice on the 
c premises notifying all concerned including the appellant 
to move out of the property and instructed its security 
persons not to permit the appellant to enter upon the said 
property. By order dated 06.08.2007, the trial court held 
that till the substantive suit was filed by the appellant, the 
0 impugned notice dated 31.07.2007 would not be acted 
upon by ~he defendants up to and inclusive of 
17.09.2007. On 10.09.2007, the appellant moved a Notice 
of Motion No. 3499 of 2007 in a Ssuit bearing No. 2618 of 
2007 before the Single Judge of the High Court for a 
E decree of specific performance, inter alia, praying for a 
permanent injunction restraining the respondent from 
dispossessing the appellant. By ad-interim order dated 
14.09.2007, the assurance given in the City Civil Court 
was directed to be observed and the respondent was 
directed not to create any third party rights pending the 
F Notice of Motion. During the pendency of the suit, by 
letter dated 19.11.2007, the respondent terminated the 
said Agreement. The single Judge, rejected prayers 
mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of the Notice of Motion and 
granted limited interim relief in favour of the appellant with 
G regard to prayer clause (g), namely, pending the hearing 
and final disposal of the suit, the defendant-respondent 
would not, in any manner, sell, transfer or create any third 
party rights or interests in the suit property. The appeals 
filed by the parties were dismissed by the Division Bench 
H of the High Court. 
MAKERS DEV SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. M. VISVESVARAYA 
111 
INDUS. RESEARCH AND DEV. CENTRE 
In the instant appeals filed by the parties, the A 
questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) 
"whether the appellant/plaintiff has made out a case for 
grant of injunction in its entirety, i.e. prayer clauses (a) 
to (g)" and (ii) "whether learned the single Judge as well 
as the Division Bench of the High Court committed an 
B 
error in granting limited relief in respect of clause (g)". 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 11.1 It is settled law that while passing an 
interim order of injunction under 0. 39, rr. 1 and 2 of the c 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court i

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