PURSHOTTAM VISHANDAS RAHEJA AND ANOTHER versus SHRICHAND VISHANDAS RAHEJA (D) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 06-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 6 S.C.R. 913 
PURSHOTTAM VISHANDAS RAHEJA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
SHRICHAND VISHANDAS RAHEJA (D) THROUGH LRS. 
AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 2011) 
MAY 6, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H. L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Interim Order: 
Suit for mandatory injunction - Interim relief - Extent of 
A 
B 
c 
- Sui{ property being developed and flats for sale being 
constructed on it - Dispute between brothers as regards the 
suit property - Single Judge of High Court granting limited 
interim orders so that the construction can go on and flats can 0 
be purchased - Division Bench making the notice of motion 
absolute and granting full interim relief - HELD: The instant 
case was not the one where mandatory interim injunction as 
sought by the plaintiff was justified - The Single Judge passed 
limited interim relief in the interest of both the parties as well E 
as flat purchasers -
The Single Judge had passed a 
reasoned order, and it could not be said that he had exercised 
discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or perverse manner -
There was no reason for the appellate Bench to interfere and 
set aside that order- The order passed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court is set aside and that of the Single Judge F 
restored. 
A dispute arose between two brothers, namely, 
appellant No.1 and respondent No.1, as regards the suit 
property, which was being developed by raising G 
constructions theJ"eon. Respondent No.1 had executed 
three Power of Attorneys in favour of appellant No.1, 
which the latter stated were executed for valid 
consideration. Respondent No.1 filed a suit arraying 
913 
H 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 
A appellant No.1 as defendant No.1, and his son as 
defendant No.2 and the Indian Bank, HSBC Bank and the 
State Bank of India as defendant Nos. 3 to 5 respectively. 
The principal prayers in the suit were for permanent 
injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from in any 
B manner directly or indirectly acting or holding themselves 
out as attorneys or agents of the plaintiff or dealing with 
any of the properties or business of the plaintiff including 
the suit property or any premises or constructions 
thereon; and restraining defendants no. 1 and 2 from in 
C any manner entering upon the suit property or any 
premises or construction thereon. It was also prayed that 
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be ordered and decreed to deliver 
to the plaintiff the documents listed in Ext. 4 and all other 
documents, correspondences and records belonging to 
0 
the plaintiff, in the possession or power of defendant 
Nos. 1 and 2. The notice of motion was taken out in the 
suit with the prayers similar to those made in the plaint 
and with further prayer seeking to restrain defendant Nos. 
3 to 5 from honoring any cheques signed by defendant 
No.1 relating to the accounts mentioned therein. The 
E Single Judge of the High Court considered the stand of 
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in the circumstances, 
observed that development and construction work had 
progressed to a substantial extent as only some finishing 
works were remaining and 23 flats were already sold; 
F and, therefore, directed that the development and 
construction works can be completed at the site and flats 
can be sold and the sale proceeds must be deposited in 
the joint bank account alone, and the account would be 
operated only to the extent paying off the liabilities 
G towards the suit property and its development. However, 
on appeal, the Division Bench held that a strong prima 
facie case was made out and by the impugned order, the 
notice of motion taken up by the plaintiff was made 
absolute thereby granting full interim relief to respondent 
H no. 1. 
PURSHOTTAM VISHANDAS RAHEJA v. SHRICHAND-
915 
VISHANDAS RAHEJA (D) THR. LRS. 
In the instant appeal filed by defendant Nos. 1 and A 
2, it was contended for the appellants that the Single 
Judge had exercised his discretion appropriately and 
there was no reason for the Division Bench of the High 
Court to interfere therein. It was also contended that the 
prayers of the notice of motion were principal prayers in B 
the plaint and, therefore, the order of the Division Bench 
of the High Court amounted to granting a decree at the 
interlocutory stage which was not justified. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
Held: 1.1. The test to be applied to assess the 
correctness of the order of the Single Judge would be 
whether the order is so arbitrary, capricious or perverse 
1 that it should be

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