Equitable Relief Of Interim Injunction At A Belated Stage Is Not Proper: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that when a party approaches the Court with delay, grant of remedy of interim injunction may not be proper.Justice AP Thaker remarked, "The Plaintiff had also kept silence for almost 8 years in instituting the suit after the execution of the agreement to sell, the equitable relief of interim injunction at a belated stage is not proper one to be granted...
The Gujarat High Court has held that when a party approaches the Court with delay, grant of remedy of interim injunction may not be proper.
Justice AP Thaker remarked,
"The Plaintiff had also kept silence for almost 8 years in instituting the suit after the execution of the agreement to sell, the equitable relief of interim injunction at a belated stage is not proper one to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The observation was made while deciding an appeal filed by the original Defendant (Appellant herein), in a suit for specific performance of contract filed by the original Plaintiff (Respondent herein), assailing the order of Civil Judge, inter alia, restraining the Appellant from selling, transferring or creating any encumbrance on the suit property.
Background
The Plaintiff had filed a suit for performance of contract and permanent injunction against the Defendant on the ground that there was an agreement to sell between the parties.
The Appellant-Defendant contended that there was a delay of 8 years, and the suit ought to have been dismissed. It relied on Veetrag Holdings Co. Ltd vs Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd [1996 (3) GLR 536] wherein the Gujarat High Court had observed:
"When it comes to grant of equitable relief when the suit is filed after such a lapse of time, it cannot be said that the remedy of interim injunction was the necessary remedy and there was no other remedy available to the party concerned in this behalf."
Per contra, the Respondent-Plaintiff submitted that there was no termination of the agreement to sell, and the Defendant had accepted the execution of the agreement to sell and accepted the part payment. There was no notice issued to the Plaintiff for payment of extra consideration for execution of deed. The order of the Trial Court, therefore, suffered from no infirmities.
Judgement
Justice Thaker primarily observed that there was no dispute about the existence of the agreement to sell. However, the evidence did not suggest that the Plaintiff was in possession of the property and that third party interest had been created in the property. The Bench opined that there was no averment by the Plaintiff regarding the payment of the remaining amount. Further, Justice Thaker remarked:
"The Plaintiff had also kept silence for almost 8 years in instituting the suit after the execution of the agreement to sell, the equitable relief of interim injunction at a belated stage is not proper one to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The Trial Court had also not examined all the aspects of the case. Even though the issue of notice being issued to the Plaintiff for payment of the sum was refuted by the Plaintiff, the fact that the Plaintiff kept silence for almost 8 years was significant.
Therefore, in light of these circumstances, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Mohammad Iqbalbhai Abdulkarim vs Chhaganbhai Shambhubhai
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 28
Case No.: C/AO/235/2019