Dismissed

Mohd. Ismail S/O Mohd. Osman v. 1)DATTARAO S/O Sitaram Dombe and Others

Bombay HC16 Jul 2014CA/889/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed against the rejection of a temporary injunction application in a specific performance suit regarding a saw mill licence. The High Court held that injunctions against non-parties to the agreement were uncalled for and rejected the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal from the order rejecting the temporary injunction was dismissed; the civil application was disposed of.

Mohd. Ismail S/O Mohd. Osman Vs 1)DATTARAO S/O… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

A.O.11/2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.11 OF 2014 WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.889 OF 2014

¶6

Mohd. Ismail Mohd. Osman

¶7

..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Dattarao Sitaram Dombe and ors.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr Amit S.Deshpande, Advocate for appellant Mr M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 Mr D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for respondent No.3

¶12

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶13

DATE : 16th July 2014

¶14

PER COURT

¶15

By this appeal from order, the appellant - plaintiff takes an exception to the order dated 3rd January 2014 passed below Exh.5, an application for grant of temporary injunction in Special Civil Suit No.5/2013.

¶16

2, The present appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No.5/2013 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani for specific performance of contract of agreement dated 13th September 2007, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff in respect of the saw mill having permit No.27/99 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, along with the accessories such as electric motors of saw mill with grinder.

¶17

A.O.11/2014

¶18

¶19

In the suit, application for grant of temporary injunction came to be moved against the defendant, more particularly, against defendant No.3 by restraining him from transferring the saw mill licence in favour of defendant No.2.

¶20

The said injunction application came to be rejected by the order impugned dated 3rd January 2014.

¶21

The learned Counsel, while assailing the order impugned has submitted that when there is agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.1, the defendant No.1 has failed to perform his part of contract, as such the suit came to be initiated. He submits that the subject matter of the suit is saw mill and accessories of the saw machine. He submits that if the injunction, as is prayed for is not granted, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. He further submits that a prima facie case is made out and balance of convenience is lies in his favour. As such, he submits that the order impugned dated 3^rd January 2014, is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

The learned Counsel for the respondents, while countering the above submissions, has invited attention of this Court to the prayer made in the application. He submits that there is brevity of contract between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2

¶23

A.O.11/2014

¶24

¶25

and 3 who are not party to the agreement, injunction cannot be prayed against them. He submits that the present petitioner has taken recourse to the alternate remedy in respect of saw mill before the officials of the Forest department. In that view of the matter, according to respondents, application for injunction is rightly rejected.

¶26

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, it appears to be the correct position of fact that the present petitioner has already taken recourse to the proceedings before the officials of Forest department in respect of transfer of licence of saw mill in favour of defendant No.1. It is also required to be taken note of the fact that the Bombay Forest Rules under which the said proceedings are initiated, I am informed at Bar that remedy of appeal is provided to the petitioner.

¶27

In addition to above, it is required to be taken note of the fact that there is no brevity of contract between plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3. In that view of the matter, even if the subject matter of the suit i.e. the saw mill licence and saw mill machinery is required to be operated upon control and supervision of the Forest department, the injunction against defendant Nos.2 and 3, in my opinion, is uncalled for, as such right is not recognised in law in given facts of the case.

¶28

A.O.11/2014

¶29

¶30

In that view of the matter, no illegality is noticed in the order impugned. No interference is called for. As such, the appeal from order is rejected. Civil Application is disposed of.

¶31

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶32

(vvr/11.14ao)

Mohd. Ismail S/O Mohd. Osman v. 1)DATTARAO S/O Sitaram Dombe and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ismail S/O Mohd. Osman v. 1)DATTARAO S/O Sitaram Dombe and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devid Jeevan Jadhav and Another Vs Jailaxmi Purandar Naik and Others

Kantabai Sudam Mhaske Vs Shankar Baburao Sawant and Others

Kisan Baburao Sawant and Another Vs Shankar Baburao Sawant and Others

Dattu Pandurang Mali Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Mohd. Ismail S/O Mohd. Osman Vs 1)DATTARAO S/O Sitaram Dombe and Others

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dondaicha Vs Vishwasrao Yashwantrao Patil and Others