Injunction Orders Cannot Be Passed Against Third Parties Without Hearing Them: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that injunction orders with respect to a suit property cannot be passed in detriment to the interest of third parties who are directly affected by it, without impleading them or giving them an opportunity of being heard. A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna set aside the common judgment and order passed by the Karnataka High Court, which...
The Supreme Court has held that injunction orders with respect to a suit property cannot be passed in detriment to the interest of third parties who are directly affected by it, without impleading them or giving them an opportunity of being heard.
A bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna set aside the common judgment and order passed by the Karnataka High Court, which had granted injunction against alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the suit property, without giving the third parties (appellants), who have right, title or interest in the property by way of development agreements and/or otherwise, an opportunity of being heard.
Factual Background
Some of the respondents had instituted a suit before the Trial Court seeking a declaration that they are entitled to their mother's 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties, with consequential relief of partition and separate possession. Subsequently, an application was filed seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Though initially, the Trial Court had granted an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from alienating or creating third party rights in the suit property, the application for ex-parte ad-interim injunction was rejected on the ground that certain portion of the suit property was owned by firms, trusts and companies, that have not been made a party to the suit. Some of the respondents filed appeals before the High Court, which granted interim injunction against alienation till the disposal of the case along with the direction that any activity pertaining to construction, improvement, modification on the suit property would be at the parties' risk leaving no room to claim equity. Aggrieved, the third parties having interest in the suit property approached the Supreme Court.
Findings of the Supreme Court
At the outset, the Court observed that, the respondents, who are original plaintiffs have acknowledged that the third parties (appellants) are necessary and property parties by filing applications to implead them as parties to the suit. In view of the same, the Court noted that before granting injunction, the appellants ought to have been impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard.
The Court took notice of the fact that the Trial Court had rejected to grant injunction on the very ground that the suit property was owned by firms, trusts and companies that were not made parties to the suit. Therefore, the Court thought it fit to quash and set aside the unsustainable injunction order of the High Court. It held -
"Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court granting injunction with respect to 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties which has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellants and without impleading them as party-defendants in the suit by the learned trial Court, is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside."
The Trial Court was enjoined to first decide the impleadment applications and thereafter, consider the interim injunction application afresh.
[Case Title: Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. v. Swayam Prabha & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 6779-6780 of 2021]
Citation : LL 2021 SC 665