Blog

While considering an application for grant of injunction, the court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL in the case of VANDANA VERMA vs. ROOP SINGH & ORS. [CS(OS) 437/2021] on 24.03.2022.

The facts of the case are that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property consisting of double storey built up, situated at abadi of School Block, Delhi. A shop, which forms part of the suit property on the ground floor of the suit property, was sold by the plaintiff to the defendant and the possession of the same was also handed over to the defendant. Vide an Agreement, the defendant undertook that he would completely co-operate with the plaintiff if any proposal for reconstruction and re-development of the suit property was initiated and shall hand over vacant peaceful possession of his shop.

Further, it was agreed that after reconstruction of the said entire suit property, the defendant would be handed back his shop. Upon the defendants failing to pay the amounts agreed to be paid to the plaintiff, a legal notice was sent on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants for rescinding the Agreement to Sell and Purchase. Since defendants did not pay the aforesaid amount, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff.

The counsel for the plaintiff contended that fraud was played upon the plaintiff by the defendants, who in collusion obtained the suit property. It is contended that the defendants did not vacate the property and therefore, it resulted in the defendants coercing the plaintiff to sell the suit property at a value, which was much less than what was agreed upon.

The counsel for the defendants denied that there was fraud played on the plaintiff and that there was collusion between the defendants. It was further submitted that the signed copy of affidavit was not filed by the plaintiff along with the documents in the suit and has been filed by the defendants.

The Court held that no prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff for grant of attachment of the suit property under the provisions of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the CPC. It was observed by the court that “It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. A person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. While considering an application for grant of injunction, the court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman