2022 CLC 2094
O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Temporary injunction---Prima facie case---Scope---Words 'prima facie' mean 'at first sight' or 'on the first impression'---Existence of the right of the plaintiff is to be adjudicated on the first sight on comparative consideration of pleadings of the parties---Court has to form its opinion as to who has a better case after tentatively analyzing from the rival contention of the parties as contained in their pleadings---If the Court is satisfied that the case of plaintiff is on a better footing, and on conclusion of the trial relief may be granted to him in all likelihoods, then the Court can infer that the plaintiff has a prima facie case---To ascertain whether a plaintiff has a prime facie case, the Court tentatively examines not only the pleadings of the parties but their affidavits, counter-affidavits and the documents appended with the plaint and the written statement O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Temporary injunction---Ingredients---Scope---Temporary injunction, by its nature, is a preventive remedy with the object to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable damage or preserve the subject-matter of the litigation until the trial is concluded---In order to succeed in obtaining Temporary injunction in a case, a plaintiff has to establish co-existence of three conditions/ingredients i.e., (i) prima facie case; (ii) possibility of suffering irreparable loss if Temporary injunction is declined; and (iii) the balance of convenience leans in his favour---Of the three conditions, existence of prima facie case is foundational and the other two conditions are considered once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case in his favour
S.12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Temporary injunction, refusal of---Possession of property---Scope---Case of appellant was that he had entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent as a result of which he had obtained possession of the suit property---Temporary injunction was sought restraining the respondent from interfering into the possession of appellant but the same was declined vide impugned order---Validity---At this stage, for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case, it certainly belied all logic that a huge amount was paid in cash, which came to around 98.75% of the total purported consideration qua suit property in respect of which, admittedly, a family dispute was pending---More so, when no documentary proof qua financial capacity of the appellant to have such a huge amount on the date of the agreement was appended with the plaint of the suit---Apart from the agreement, no document was appended with the plaint regarding possession of the appellant---Neither in the agreement nor in the plaint, it had been mentioned as to which specific portion of the suit property had been given to the appellant when admittedly the respondent and other co-sharers had a dispute qua the same and without partition, it was not possible to hand over possession over any specific portion to the appellant---Appellant had failed to prove prima facie case in his favour---Application for grant of Temporary injunction had rightly been dismissed---Appeal was dismissed
0 Comments