Blog

In Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is specifically provided that no injunction can be granted when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR in the case of SANJAY CHUGH & ANR. vs. RAM KISHAN & ORS. [CM Appl. 50920/2019] on 30.03.2022.

The facts of the case are that the plaint, from which these proceedings emanate was preferred by the respondents against the appellants seeking mandatory injunction, directing the appellants to remove malba, garbage etc., which they were alleged to have thrown in open land adjacent to the respondents’ premises and for permanently restraining the appellants from throwing any such malwa, garbage etc. at the said land. It was specifically alleged that consequent to certain disputes having arisen between the appellants and the respondents, whereby the appellants were restrained, as a result of which the appellants were allegedly thwarted in their attempts to raise construction on the open land, they started depositing garbage therein. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assails an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge.

The counsel for plaintiff submitted that the respondents has no personal interest over the land on which the malba or garbage etc. was allegedly being deposited as they claimed no right, title or possession in respect thereof. He submits that, in such circumstances, Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act operates as an absolute proscription against grant of injunction.

The Court held that keeping in view the fact that the plaintiffs have no personal right, title or interest in respect of the open land shown in the site plan filed along with the plaint and keeping in view the fact that Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not permit this Court to grant any injunction to a plaintiff having no personal interest in the matter, the plaint of this suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, 1908. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed.

It was observed, “If the plaintiff is a complete stranger, having no personal interest with respect to the grievance expressed in the suit, being “the matter” in the suit, no doubt, Section 41(j) operates as a proscription against grant of injunction. The words “the matter” cannot, however, in my view, be conflict with the property forming subject matter of the suit. The grievance of the plaintiffs, as voiced in the suit, and dehors its merits, was that the respondents had committed an actionable tort which, if proved, could even amount to nuisance.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman