Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 16 CS SCJ 1014/23
SHREE HANUMAN MANDIR SAMITI WEST ENCLAVE
PITAMPURA DELHI
Vs.
RAM AVTAR BANSAL
17.08.2023
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 a registered society and the
present suit has been filed by the plaintiff through its President. That
the plaintiff Samiti is looking after the working of Pracheen Sidh
Hanuman Mandir situated at West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi. The
plaintiff Samiti is also having electricity connection, phone connection
and water connection and is also maintaining a bank account. The
plaintiff Samiti has been working for the welfare of the Mandir since
its very inception. That the defendants hold various posts in West
Enclave RWA and want to grab the Samiti and take over its control.
That the defendants have filed various false complaints against the
plaintiff Samiti alleging illegality and irregularity in its functioning.
That the defendants in order to further their agenda organized a public
meeting on 04.09.2022 and also called a Special General Body
Meeting on 30.04.2023. That on 30.04.2023, the defendants have
created an Adhoc committee for managing the affairs of the Samiti. It
is submitted that the defendants are not members of the plaintiff
Samiti and therefore have no right to create the said Adhoc committee
or to take over the charge of the plaintiff Samiti. That the defendants
have issued another public notice dated 23.07.2023 thereby stating
that the office bearer are not doing their duties in proper manner and
Suit no. 896/2023 Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
thereby calling upon the public for conducting fresh elections of the
plaintiff Samiti to enroll new members. That the defendants took over
the Administration of the plaintiff Samiti and also vandalized the
structure of the Mandir for which various complaints have been made
by the plaintiff. that the defendants used to block the entrance Gate of
the Mandir by sitting there and offering prayers through mic and
speakers. Hence, the present suit.
3. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff praying
that the defendants should be restrained from calling for fresh election
to create new membership and from promoting any Adhoc committee
against the constitution of plaintiff Samiti and to restrain the
defendants from blocking the entrance gates of the Mandir.
4. It is important to observe that the present suit was filed on
07.08.2023 and summons were received by the defendants on
11.08.2023. A short date was given to the plaintiff as he had pressed
on the present application u/O 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. The time for filing
of WS has not elapsed yet.
5. Arguments on behalf of both the parties on the present
application have been 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
Suit no. 896/2023 Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
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
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, the plaintiff has made the following
three prayers:-
a) declaration to declare the Adhoc committee formed by the
defendant as null and void.
b) permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from calling for
fresh election to create new membership and from promoting any
Adhoc committee against the constitution of plaintiff Samiti.
c) permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from blocking the
Suit no. 896/2023 Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
entrance gates of the Mandir.
In the present application, the plaintiff has made the following
two prayers:
a) temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from calling for fresh
election to create new membership and from promoting any Adhoc
committee against the constitution of plaintiff Samiti.
b) temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from blocking the
entrance gates of the Mandir.
12. At the very outset, it appears that the interim reliefs sought by
the plaintiff by way of present application is same as that of two of the
reliefs in the main suit.
13. 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 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.
14. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has
pressed on the urgency and the immediacy of the present application.
Suit no. 896/2023 Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
However, it is observed that while one hand the plaintiff prays that the
defendants should be restrained from promoting any Adhoc committee
against the constitution of the Samiti, on the other hand the plaintiff
himself has failed to file any documents regarding the Constitution of
the plaintiff Samiti. The plaintiff has also failed to file any document
showing the bye-laws of the plaintiff Samiti or any documents that
reflect the procedure of election of the members of the plaintiff Samiti.
The plaintiff has failed to show the existence of strong prime facie
case in his favour as is the requirement of law considering the fact that
the interim relief is same as the main relief. The plaintiff by way of
present application seeks to restrain the defendants from conducting
elections by the Adhoc Committee. The time for filing of WS has not
elapsed yet and the contention of the parties as regards their authority
over the plaintiff Samiti are a matter of trial. The balance of
convenience is also against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to
show the urgency or the immediacy of the present application. Even
so, no irreparable injury shall be caused to the already existing
plaintiff Samiti as the contentions of both the plaintiff and defendant
would, in any case, be a matter of trial.
15. 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.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, application in hand stands
dismissed and disposed off.
Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount to an expression
of opinion upon the merits of the present case.
Announced in an open Court today.
(Shaina Goyal)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts/17.08.2023
Suit no. 896/2023 Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --