| APPEAL NUMBER | 243/2021 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 16th October 2023 |
| COURT | HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY |
| APPELLANT | Prashant Rambhau Pathare and Ors. |
| RESPONDENT | Aparna Ashok Joshi and Ors. |
| BENCH | Sandeep V. Marne, J |
INTRODUCTION
The case of Prashant Rambhau Pathare and Ors vs. Aparna Ashok Joshi and Ors involves an appeal challenging the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, dated January 16, 2020. The order rejected the application filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking a temporary injunction. The appellants had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 875 of 2018, seeking specific performance of an Agreement for Sale, possession of the suit property, and challenging a Deed of Assignment dated May 16, 2018, executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favor of Defendant No. 4 to 6.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case involves an appeal filed against the order dated 16 January 2020 by the Civil Judge Senior Division in Pune. The order rejected the application filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs for the grant of a temporary injunction. The Plaintiffs had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 875 of 2018, seeking specific performance of an Agreement for Sale, possession of the suit property, and challenging a Deed of Assignment dated 16 May 2018 executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favor of Defendant No. 4 to 6.
The Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant No. 1, Aparna Ashok Joshi, and Defendant No. 2, Amit Ashok Joshi, executed an Agreement for Sale dated 7 July 2017, agreeing to sell Flat Nos. 2, 4, 6, and Shop No. 7 for a consideration of Rs. 1,73,00,000/-. They alleged that the entire amount had been paid in 2013. Instead of executing a Sale Deed as per the agreement, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 sold Flat No. 6 and Shop No. 7 to Defendant Nos. 4 to 6.
The Plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary injunction to prevent Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from creating third-party rights in Flat Nos. 2 & 4 and to restrain Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 from creating third-party rights in Flat No. 6 and Shop No. 7. However, the Trial Court rejected the application on 16 January 2020.
In the appeal, the Appellants argued that the Trial Court erred in concluding that they did not provide documentary evidence of the payment. They asserted that the agreement referred to cheque numbers, and they presented bank statements showing the encashment of the cheques and the transfer of amounts to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The Appellants sought the continuation of the ad-interim relief granted by the High Court on 26 April 2022, restraining the Defendants from creating any third-party rights or parting with possession of the suit property.
The Respondent opposed the appeal, highlighting an application filed by the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court for the amendment of the plaint. The Respondent argued that the Plaintiffs were changing their stance, introducing a new case through the amendment, and were unsure about the exact nature of the transaction.
GROUNDS APPEALED
The Appellants argue that the Trial Court erred in rejecting their injunction application, emphasizing the documentary evidence provided for the payment. They highlight the High Court’s ad-interim relief and contest the Respondent’s reliance on a plaint amendment, asserting it strengthens rather than weakens their case. The Appellants stress the Trial Court’s oversight of the bona fide purchaser status of Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 and claim inconsistency with established principles in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited vs. KS Intraspace LLP Limited. They contend the Trial Court’s decision deviates from the goal of preventing prejudice and maintaining the status quo, justifying the request for ad-interim relief until the suit’s conclusion. The Appellants seek the High Court’s intervention to overturn the Trial Court’s decision and grant injunctive relief until the suit’s conclusive resolution. Make it very short
CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT
- The Appellants challenge the order dated January 16, 2020, rejecting their application for a temporary injunction in Special Civil Suit No. 875 of 2018.
- The suit seeks specific performance of the Agreement for Sale, possession of the property, and challenges the Deed of Assignment dated May 16, 2018, executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favor of Defendant Nos. 4 to 6.
- The Appellants claim to have paid the entire consideration of Rs. 1,73,00,000/- to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in 2013 itself.
- The Trial Court, in rejecting the injunction, allegedly erred in concluding that the Appellants failed to provide evidence of the payment and overlooked the ad-interim relief granted by the High Court.
- The Appellants emphasize the existence of the agreement, cheque numbers, and bank statements as proof of payment.
- Ad-interim relief granted by the High Court restrained the Defendants from creating third-party rights or parting with possession of the property.
- The rejection of the application is inconsistent with established legal principles, as outlined in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited vs. KS Intraspace LLP Limited.
- The Appellants argue that the Trial Court failed to consider the subsequent purchasers’ bona fide status and assert that injunctive relief is crucial to prevent further complications in the dispute.
- The refusal to grant injunction goes against the goal of preventing prejudice and maintaining the status quo until the final resolution of the suit.
- The Appellants seek the High Court’s intervention to overturn the Trial Court’s decision and grant the necessary injunctive relief until the final disposal of the suit.
CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT
- The Respondent opposes the appeal, citing the rejection of the application for temporary injunction by the Trial Court as proper and in line with legal principles.
- 2. The Respondent argues that the Plaintiffs’ inconsistency is evident in their attempt to introduce an amendment, indicating uncertainty about the nature of the transaction and the payment.
- 3. The application for amendment, filed after the rejection of the injunction, suggests an admission that the Plaintiffs couldn’t prove the payment before the Trial Court.
- 4. The Respondent relies on the judgment in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited vs. KS Intraspace LLP Limited to support the Trial Court’s exercise of sound discretion in denying the injunction.
- 5. Defendant Nos. 4 to 6, represented by Mr. Walimbe, contend that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration, and injunctive relief should not be granted against them.
- 6. The delay in instituting the suit and the change in Plaintiffs’ stance are highlighted to argue against the grant of injunction.
- 7. The Respondent opposes the continuation of ad-interim relief, emphasizing that the Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.
JUDGEMENT
In its ruling, the High Court noted that the Plaintiffs had not proven a connection between the 2013 payments and the 2017 Agreement for Sale. The Plaintiffs, realising this, the Court observed, submitted a motion for modification in 2021, presenting a fresh story concerning a land transaction at Lohgaon. The Court determined that the Plaintiffs had not established a sufficient case to support the issuance of a temporary injunction as of the date of the contested decision.
The Court made it clear that parties that take conflicting stands would not be awarded the interim injunction, which is a discretionary remedy. It used a ruling from Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited v. KS Intraspace LLP Limited as evidence in favour of the idea that the court need to apply good judgement while determining whether or not to issue an injunction. The appeal was dismissed when the Court determined that the Trial Court had properly denied the request for a temporary injunction. Additionally, the plea to keep the ad-interim relief in
ANALYSIS
In this case, the appellants/plaintiffs filed an appeal challenging the order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, which rejected their application for a temporary injunction. The appellants sought specific performance of an Agreement for Sale, possession of the suit property, and challenged a Deed of Assignment executed by the defendants. The dispute revolved around the payment of Rs. 1,73,00,000 towards the property. The court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The court noted inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ stand and the belated attempt to amend the plaint to introduce a new case, leading to the refusal of injunctive relief.
The court, applying the principles of discretionary relief, cited the importance of a plaintiff establishing a strong prima facie case based on undisputed facts, along with irreparable injury and a balance of convenience favoring the injunction. In this instance, the court found the plaintiffs inconsistent in their claims and upheld the Trial Court’s decision, refusing the injunction. The judgment highlights the significance of a consistent and well-established case for the grant of discretionary relief in legal proceedings.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the court stressed that a party must maintain consistency in its stance and that the remedy of a temporary injunction is discretionary. The plaintiffs’ effort to present an addendum that would have indicated a different kind of transaction significantly undermined their position.
After weighing the convenience of all parties, the court determined that issuing a temporary injunction would unfairly harm the defendants, particularly any later purchasers, and that rejecting the injunction would preserve the plaintiffs’ current situation.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Atharv Dwivedi student of National Law University Jodhpur; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
