Madras High Court
This Application Under Order 14 Rule 8 Of ... vs This Application Under Order 14 Rule 8 Of ... on 16 November, 2011
Author: Vinod K.Sharma
Bench: Vinod K.Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.11.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA O.A.No.364 & 365 of 2010 in C.S.No.304 of 2010 ORDER
This order shall dispose of O.A.Nos.364 & 365 of 2010.
PRAYER IN O.A.No.364 of 2010:
This application under Order 14 Rule 8 of O.S.Rules, read with Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C., has been filed by the plaintiff/applicant for grant of ad-interim injunction, restraining the third respondent, their men, agent or anybody claiming in their name, authority or contract from proceeding with the construction of superstructure at the schedule mentioned property or dispose of the sme to third parties pending disposal of the suit.
PRAYER IN O.A.No.365 of 2010:
This application under Order 14 Rule 8 of O.S.Rules, read with Order 39 Rule 1 of C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiff/applicant for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the third respondent from alienating the schedule mentioned property, in any manner including conveyance, mortgage etc. till the disposal of the suit.
2 The plaintiff/applicant has filed a suit for specifif performance on agreement dated 16.07.2009 against the defendants 1 & 2. The defendant No.3 has been impleaded as party, as before filing of the suit, the defendants 1 & 2 had sold the property to defendant No.3.
3 Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed the above mentioned applications.
4 There is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/applicant for the present, as admittedly, defendant No.3 is the registered owner of the property as on date who cannot be denied the trust of ownership merely on allegations, without showing any injury to plaintiff. The inherent equitable jurisdiction or powers under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, can only be exercised to do substantial justice and protect the parties from irreparable injury. The jurisdiction to pass interim orders is not to be exercised merely on asking. The party claiming interim relief has to make out a special case, showing that non grant of relief as prayed for would result in irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
5 It is now well settled law that transfers of creation of interest on property during pendency of the suit, are hit by the principle of "lis pendens". The "lis pendens" purchaser cannot claim any independent right in the suit property, nor the right of party can be defeated by overact during pendency of suit when the party has notice of the suit. The plaintiff/applicant therefore, is not likely to suffer any irreparable loss and injury, in case injunction, as prayed for is not granted.
6 Consequently, these applications are ordered to be dismissed.
No cost.
vaan