Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 31 CS SCJ 562/23
SUNIL KUMAR Vs. NARENDER
08.10.2024.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application u/O 39 Rule 1
& 2 CPC.
2. As per the plaintiff, the plaintiff is absolute owner of the prop-
erty bearing no. 107, measuring 130 sq yds out of Kh. no. 73/1, old lal
dora 1908-1909, Village chandpur, Delhi. (hereinafter referred as 'suit
property'). It is the case of the plaintiff that his father was the owner of
the suit property and that his father executed a gift deed dated
08.01.2009 qua the suit property in favour of the plaintiff thereby
making the plaintiff its absolute onwer. That the defendants, on vari-
ous occasions, visited the suit property and threatened the plaintiff that
they shall take forcible possession of the suit property. Hence, the
present suit.
3. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that father of
the plaintiff was owner of a property measuring 260 sq. yds and that
he died intestate on 16.05.2010 leaving behind his four sons as his le-
gal heirs. That one of the sons namely Sh. Krishan sold his one fourth
share in the said property i.e. 65 sq. yds to the defendant no. 1 by way
of documents dated 10.12.2012. The defendant has denied the con-
tents of the plaint and has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dis-
missed.
Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff
wherein it is prayed that the defendant be restrained from taking
forcible possession of the suit property. The defendant has denied the
contents of the present application and has prayed that the present ap-
plication be dismissed.
5. Arguments on behalf of both the parties heard. Record perused.
6. It is a well settled law that for proving himself to be entitled to a
temporary injunction, the plaintiff has to prove three things:-
(i) That a
prima facie case is made out in his favour.
(ii) That the balance of convenience lies in his favour.
(iii) That the refusal of injunction will cause irreparable
injury to him.
7. As has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
prima facie case means that there is a
serious disputed question to be tried in the suit, and on facts before the
Court, there is probability of applicant to be entitled to the relief asked
for.
8. Prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt. It is no
part of the Court's function at this stage, to sift and weigh, the
evidentiary material filed alongwith pleadings to assess their probative
value. The only requirement is that whether the view taken as per the
plaint and documents filed by the plaintiff is a possible view or not.
[M. Gurudas V/s Rasranjan (2006) 8 SCC 367].
9. As far as the point of irreparable injury is concerned, it is a
Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
settled law that no injury is irreparable which can be adequately
compensated by way of damages and when there are other efficacious
remedies available to the applicant.
[Kuldip Singh V/s Subhash
Chandra Jain (AIR 2000 SC 1410), Maharawal Khewaji Trust V/s
Baldev Dass (2004) 8 SCC 488].
10. Balance of convenience connotes comparative hardship or
mischief likely to be caused to either party in case of grant or refusal
of the injunction.
[Dalpat Kumar V/s Prahlad Singh (AIR 1993 SC
276)].
11. In facts of the present case, it is observed that the injunction
prayed for in the application is in terms of the prayer clause of the
plaint. It appears that the interim relief sought by the plaintiff by way
of present application is same as that of the main suit. It is a settled
law as also reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Deoraj
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors Civil Appeal no. 2084/2004 that in
situations where granting of an interim relief would tantamount to
granting of final relief itself, the standard of proof is much higher. The
applicant in such cases has to show a very strong prima facie case of a
standard much higher than just prima facie case, considerations of
balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the
balance of the case totally in favour of the applicant so as to persuade
the court to grant an interim relief which is same as that of final relief.
The same should be granted under compelling circumstances where
the injury complained of is immediate and would cause extreme
hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen.
12. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has
relied upon a Lal dora certificate issued in favour of his father qua a
Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
plot measuring 130 sq yds in Kh. no. 73/1 and he has relied upon a gift
deed dated 08.01.2009 executed by his father in his favour qua the
said property. However, a bare perusal of the Lal dora certificate
shows that the said certificate categorically mentions that it does not
confer right of ownership/license on the certificate holder. The
plaintiff has thus failed to show even on a prima facie basis as to how
his father was owner of the suit property. It is noteworthy that the
defendant has admitted that father of the plaintiff was owner of a plot
however as per defendant the said plot was of 260 sq. yds and not 130
sq yds as claimed by the plaintiff. It is also observed that the gift deed
relied upon by the plaintiff is an unregistered document. It is also
observed that the plaintiff has failed to show his possession on the suit
property. It is pertinent to note that the interim relief prayed for by the
plaintiff is same as that of the final relief and granting of the interim
relief at this stage would virtually mean decreeing the suit without
evidences. Thus, the essential requirements of a very strong prima
facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury are not found to
exist in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, application in hand
stands dismissed.
Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount to an ex-
pression of opinion upon the merits of the present case.
Announced in an open Court today.
(Shaina Goyal)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts/08.10.2024
Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --