Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 16 CS SCJ 896/23
MOHD BABAR ANSARI
Vs.
PRASHANT S/O LT. ANUP KUMAR
28.07.2023
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 owner of the property
bearing no. S-75-76, Sanjay Gandhi, Mini DDA market, Mangolpuri,
Delhi. That mother of defendant no. 1 is the owner of shop of property
bearing no. S-73, Sanjay Gandhi, Mini DDA market, Mangolpuri,
Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') which is absolutely
adjacent to the shop of plaintiff from its back side. It is submitted that
mother of defendant no. 1 approached a plaintiff to let out the suit
property and the plaintiff took the same on security on rent the paid
Rs. 4 Lakhs to the mother of defendant no. 1 for the same. But when
the plaintiff went to start his work at the suit property the defendants
did not let the plaintiff do the same and slapped the plaintiff and
threatened the plaintiff to vacate the shop. That the plaintiff
complained of the said acts to the mother of defendant no. 1 who was
the owner of the suit property and that on request he purchased the suit
property on 06.07.2023 and became the sole and absolute owner of the
suit property thereon. It has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that
defendant no. 1 is trying to sell the suit property. Hence, the present
suit.
WS has not been filed in the present matter as the summons
were only served. The plaintiff pressed on the present application u/O
39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and also filed an application for early hearing for
Suit no. 896/2023 Page 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
the same. The same was allowed and the notice of application was
issued to the respondents for date fixed i.e. today.
Arguments on behalf of both the parties heard at length.
3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff
seeking injunction simplicitor from the suit property. The defendants
have contested the present application on the ground that mother of
defendant no. 1 is not the absolute owner of the suit property and she
had no rights to execute any sale deed, as alleged, in favour of the
plaintiff. It is submitted that various other proceedings are pending
between the parties herein in other courts and has accordingly prayed
that the present application be dismissed.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
Suit no. 896/2023 Page 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
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].
7. As far as the point of irreparable injury is concerned, it is a
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].
8. 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)].
9. In facts of the present case, the plaintiff has failed to mention
any relief sought by the present application. The application simply
states that the Court be pleased to grant injunction from suit property.
The relief of injunction is against some acts complained of. The same
have not been mentioned in the present application. On enquiry of the
same from the plaintiff, it was submitted 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
Suit no. 896/2023 Page 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
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 pursuade
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.
10. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has
only filed GPA documents in respect of ownership title of the suit
property. The plaintiff has relied upon a sale deed however, he has
failed to show as to how the executant had any title of absolute
ownership in the suit property. The acts complained of are mere
averments without any prima facie proof of the same. The same does
not give rise to a strong prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiff/applicant. The defendant no. 1 has also raised his own
right/title/interest in the suit property. It is pertinent to note that time
for filing of WS has not elapsed as yet and defence of the defendants
is not on record. The title of the suit property is a matter of trial. 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.
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/28.07.2023
Suit no. 896/2023 Page 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --