The High Court rejected an appeal challenging an injunction order due to a significant delay of 841 days. The court held that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the lapse and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the injunction.
The civil application and the pending appeal were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/CA/3156/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3156 of 2019
In F/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 28903 of 2019
With
F/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 28903 of 2019
========================================================== RANCHHODBHAI LILABHAI DESAI
Versus
PRAKASH DEVSHIBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ASHOK A PUROHIT(6267) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,10,11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 06/02/2020
ORAL ORDER
Order dated 28.02.2017 rendered below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 274 of 2016 by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) granting an injunction against the applicant; in favour of the opponent is sought to be assailed in the appeal from order with a delay of 841 days. The explanation is that alongwith the injunction application, Order 7 Rule 11 application was also moved in the court below. While rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC the court below allowed the application Exh.5. The order under Order 7 Rule 11 was the subject matter of the appeal in the High Court which appeal was allowed and which was challenged by the opponent unsuccessfully in the Supreme Court; their case was dismissed on 16.08.2019. It is not in dispute that between 10.01.2018 and 16.08.2019, when
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/3156/2019 ORDER
the appeal was allowed, the proceedings were not stayed and thus the order below Exh.5 was alive and starring in the face of the applicant. There is no explanation as to why the appellant herein did not challenge the said order for a period of almost one and half year; except that, during the pendency of appeal with the Supreme Court the applicant did not opt to challenge it; such a ground cannot be countenanced as a ground for condonation of delay, for reasons more than one: (1) a party aggrieved by injunction would normally be curious to get rid of it and would not suffer an injunction.
(2) the purpose of injunction as indication in Order 39 Rule (1) is to save the plaintiff from the hazards contemplated therein. The discretion under the provision can be exercisable only when the apprehension echoed against the intentions of defendant is well founded; and where apprehension has outlived the time, there would be a presumption in favour of non-existence of apprehension; unless contrary is proved.
Under any case it appears that though the appellant had an opportunity to assail the order of injunction, he waited for about one and half year. No satisfactory explanation for the said period is given. The application must fail and is rejected. Consequently the appeal from order would not survive; accordingly disposed of.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J)
syed/
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a delay of 841 days in challenging an injunction order can be condoned without a satisfactory explanation.
Whether the failure to challenge an injunction despite the plaintiff not enjoying the benefit thereof constitutes reasonable hesitation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
RANCHHODBHAI LILABHAI DESAI
PRAKASH DEVSHIBHAI
G.R. UDHWANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
