Partly allowed

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board v. The Sneha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Telangana HC11 Jun 2014CMA/479/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal, setting aside a trial court's temporary injunction order to the extent it restrained the appellant-3, who was not alleged in the plaintiff's affidavit to have interfered with the suit property.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed setting aside the temporary injunction order and decree dated 03-12-2013 to the extent it concerns the appellant-3rd respondent.

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board Vs The… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 479 OF 2014

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶4

This appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 03-12-2013 in I.A.No.897 of 2005 in O.S.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of offences under S.Cs & S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cumXX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad.

¶5

2. Appellant herein is the 3^rd respondent (3^rd defendant), respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners (plaintiffs) and the respondents 3 to 5 herein are the respondents 1, 2 and 4 (defendants 1,2 and 4) before the trial Court.

¶6

3. Plaintiffs filed the above Interlocutory Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC to grant ad-interim temporary injunction against the defendants from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property pending disposal of the main suit.

¶7

4. The trial Court after considering the material on record, allowed the application granting temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property pending disposal of the main suit. Hence, this appeal.

¶8

5. It seems, the Interlocutory application was dismissed for default. Subsequently, it was restored to file one day prior to the passing of the impugned order.

¶9

6. Grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three principles viz., 1) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case 2) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and 3) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury.

¶10

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, there is no allegation of whatsoever against the appellant herein (3^rd defendant) with regard to its interference over the suit schedule property. In the entire affidavit filed in support of the application, only some allegations are leveled against the respondents 3 and 4 herein (defendants 1 and 2). In the absence of any allegation with regard to the present appellant’s interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside insofar as the appellant3^rd defendant is concerned because grant of injunction is a perverse order and perversity cannot be continued. Therefore, it is totally non application of mind by the learned Judge and without referring to the allegations in the affidavit, the learned Judge simply granted injunction. Hence, the impugned order needs interference by this Court.

¶11

8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order and decree, dated 03-12-2013 in I.A.No.897 of 2005 in O.S.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of offences under S.Cs & S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, insofar as the appellant-3^rd respondent (3^rd defendant) is concerned. No order as to costs.

¶12

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶13

K.C.BHANU, J

¶14

----------------------ANIS, J

¶15

DATED: 11-06-2014 Hsd

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board v. The Sneha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board v. The Sneha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Ashok Kumar, Vs The Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and

V. Balvanth Rao, Vs The Principal Secretary

K. Ashok Kumar Vs Smt. G. Pramila

R. Sathish Chandra Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

M.K. Prasad, Ifs., S/o Late Balakotaiah Vs The Union of India, rep by its Secretary

Pulipati Narasimha Rao Vs Pulipati Prasad