LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI versus SURESH CHANDRA JAIPURIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D 10 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI v. SURESH CHANDRA JAIPURIA & ANR. November 3, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] . Civil Procedure Code Sec. 115-Concurrent decisions 011 question of facts;. znterfere11ce by High Court, whether justified-Specific Relief Act, 1963 S. 41 (h) applicatio11. The re~pondent purchased a house, and under the sale-deed became respon· sible for paying the house-tax subsequent to the purchase. On his failure to pay the same, the appellant corporation started proceedings agairu;t him for the · realisation of dues. In the course of a suit for permanent injun~tion, the res- pondent's application for an interim injunction was rejected by two courts. On further appeal, the High Court granted him interim injunction on the ground that there was a prima facie case even though agreeing with the appellate court that the balance of convenience was against such grant. Allowing the appeal the Court, HBLD : 1. Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, lays down that an , I injunction, which is a discretionary equitable relief, cannot be granted when an ... equally efficacious relief is obtainable in any otht'.lr usual mode or proceedings except in cases of breach of.trust. [13E-F] 2. While exercising its jurisdiction under s. 115 the High Court is not competent to correct assumed erroneous findings of fact. The High Court had E itself erred plainly both in holding that the courts below had not taken a correct view of the prima facie case which existed here and that the question of bafance of convenience was irrelevant. [12C-D, 13F-G] F G H 3. High Court had overlooked legally possible grounds of interference under section 115 C.P.C. [14-A-B] Balderdas Shiv/al & Anr. v. Fi/mistan Distributors (India) P. Ltd. & Ors. [1970] 1 SCR 435; D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co. P. Ltd. New Delhi v. Sarup Singlt & Ors., [1970] 2 SCR 368; The Managing Direcror !MIG) Hindu- stan Aero11otics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad & Anr. v. Ajit Prnsad Tarway, Manage,. (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan A eronotic,, Ltd. Balana11ar, Hyder· abad, A.LR. 1973 S.C. 76; applied. Mis Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Mis Basic Equipment Corpora- tion [1977] 1 S.C.R. 1060 referred to. Dewan Dau/at Ram Kapur v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Am·. ILR 1973 (1) Delhi 363 distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1202 of 1976. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 21st Feb. 1975 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Revision No. 479 of 1974. F. S. Nariman, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for thee ( Appellant. .M.C. DELHI v. SURESH CHANDRA (Beg, J.) 11 Mahendra Narain Advocate of Rajendra Narain & Co., for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG. J. After issuing a notice to show cause why special leave should not be granted, this Court granted, on 13th October, 1976, A the leave prayed for to appeal agilinst the judgment and order of a B. learned Judge of the Ddh.i High Court. That Court had interfered under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code, with the concurrent findings of the Trail Court and the Appellate Court in this case that, as the plaintiff could not make out a prima facie case, no interim injunction could be granted to the respondent to restrain the appellant, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, from realising a sum of Rs. 27,216/- on account of house tax from the plaintiffs pending the disposal of a c suit for a permanent injunction. This Court directed a hearing of this appeal on 28th October, 1976. Accordingly,, the appeal is now before us. The plaintiff had purchased a house in South Extension, New Delhi, on 21st February, 1969, free from all encumberances, de- mands, or liabilities under the sale deed, and the vendor, Mohan Siagh, had undertaken to discharge these dues. It was, therefore, D decided in a previous suit that the defendant-appellant could not recover the whole amount sought to be recovered as house tax from him. The respondent was absolved from liability for the period be- fore the sale. But, the plaintiff was liable to pay the tax for the period after the purchase. He had also paid Rs. 6,992/-. It ap- pears that proceedings for realisation of dues subsequent to tile pur- chase had then been taken by the appellant corporation. The K plaintiff's suit for a permanent injunction was brought on the ground that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.