Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Hari Singh & Ors. Rt on 14 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA OMP No. 380 of 2025 and OMP No. 1192 of 2025 in .
Civil Suit No. 20 of 2025.
Reserved on : 30.04.2026.
Decided on : 14th May, 2026.
of
Ashok Kumar ...Applicant/plaintiff.
Versus
Hari Singh & Ors. rt ....Respondents/defendants.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Applicant/plaintiff: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Advocate &Mr. Pankaj Chaudhary, Advocate For the Respondents/ Defendants No.1 to 9: Mr. Ashok. K. Tyagi, Advocate.
For Respondent/defendant No. 10: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.
For respondents/defendants No. 11 to 17: Mr. Hitansh Raj, Advocate.
For Respondents/defendants No. 18 & 19: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate.
Romesh Verma, Judge.
The present order shall dispose of two applications, one bearing OMP No. 380 of 2025 filed by the applicant/plaintiff 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 2under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim injunction and Application .
bearing OMP No. 1192 of 2025 filed under Order 39, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of defendants No. 18 and 19 for vacation of the ad-interim order dated 02.05.2025 passed by this Court.
of
2. The plaintiff/applicant has filed a suit for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and damages to the tune of rt Rs.1,83,68,560/- along with interest @ of 12 % per annum against defendants No. 1 to 17. It has been averred in the plaint that the defendants are joint owners of the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 34/40, Khasra No. 400, 401, 402, 403 Kita 4 land measuring 00-41-07 hectares, land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 164/197, Khasra No. 391, 392, kita-2 land measuring 00-39-48 hectares, land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 46/54min, Khasra No. 382, land measuring 0-37-44 hectares salam, land comprised Khata Khtauni No. 59/59, Khasra No. 390, land measuring 0-15-11 hectare (as per the share of the defendants) situated in Up-Mohal Bahang, Phati Buruwa, Kothi and Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 3 as entered in the Missal Hakiyat and jamabandis for the year 2015- 2016.
.
3. That the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and thereafter the proforma defendants entered into various lease deeds dated 26.05.2011, 27.05.2011, 31.03.2022 with the plaintiff for leasing out the suit land to the plaintiff for a period of 35 years of commencing from 25.05.2011 to 31.03.2046 at the yearly lease amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- alongwith 12% increase after every five rt years. The said lease deeds dated 26.05.2011 and 27.05.2011 were duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. and thereafter the plaintiff took physical possession of the suit property and developed the said property by constructing an Amusement Park named as Him Valley Amusement and Culture Park Manali. The plaintiff spent almost an amount of Rs. 5 Crore for the development of the Park on the suit land and had been continuously paying the lease amount as settled between the parties to the defendants.
4. It has been averred that during the subsistence of the lease deeds dated 26.05.2011 and 27.05.2011, some of the original ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 4 lessors i.e. predecessor-in-interest of the defendants No. 7 to 9 specifically Sh. Lot Ram, predecessor in interest of defendants No. .
2 to 4, Sh. Bali Ram, predecessor in interest of proforma defendants No. 12 to 14, Sh. Subhash and Sh. Lal Chand predecessor-in-interest of proforma defendants No. 15 to 17 expired and due to the said demise of the said lessors, fresh lease of deeds were executed by the defendants and proforma defendants on 31.03.2022 rtby cancelling previous lease deeds dated 26.05.2011 and 27.05.2011 in favour of the plaintiff, whereby the suit land was further leased in favour of the plaintiff for a period of 19 years w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2041 on new terms and conditions. The previous lease deeds were cancelled and the fresh lease deeds were executed by the defendants and proforma defendants which were duly notarized.
5. That the plaintiff was paying the lease amount to the defendants on the settled terms and conditions as agreed between the parties in lieu of the lease deeds and no payment of the defendants was ever delayed by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff on the basis of his legal and valid possession as per lease deeds ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 5 was continuing peacefully on the suit land and carrying on with the administration and execution of project named as Him Valley .
Amusement and Culture Park, but the defendants and their agents without any right, title or interest and despite entering into the valid and legal lease deeds with the plaintiff which were effective uptill the year 2041 entered the suit land on 22.03.2025 with a JCB of Machine and forcefully demolished the structures as raised on the suit land by causing immense damage to the suit land, buildings rt and structures erected on the same. That the said illegal acts of the defendants were duly reported to the SHO, Police Station Manali and FIR to this effect was also registered by the police authorities.
6. In para-12 of the plaint, it has been averred that the defendants in connivance with their agents and certain persons who did not had any right or title over the suit land have illegally demolished the buildings, structures fixtures swings and even damaged the temple of Lord Shiva which has caused substantial damage. The plaintiff has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 5-6 Crores. Therefore, it was prayed that decree for declaration may ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 6 be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring the plaintiff to be in peaceful and legal possession over .
the suit land on the basis of duly executed and registered lease deeds dated 26.05.2011, 27.05.2011 and fresh lease deed dated 31.03.2022. Further, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought by the plaintiff against the of defendants, restraining them from interfering, dispossessing, ousting, damaging, alienating, creating any charge or third party rt rights and from changing and transferring the suit land in any manner during the subsistence of the lease period which is valid upto 31.03.2041. Further, a decree for recovery of Rs.1,83,68,560/-
along with interest @12% per annum on account of damages suffered by plaintiff was also sought from the defendants.
7. Alongwith suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for restraining the defendants/non-applicants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the applicant and further restraining the defendants from changing, dispossessing, selling, transferring, alienating, ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 7 encumbering and creating any charge or third party rights over the suit land in any manner in the interest of justice, .
8. The defendants were duly served and learned counsel for the defendants put in appearance on 30.05.2025.
9. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No.1 to 9 as well as reply to the application under Order 39, Rules of 1 and 2 of the CPC. Defendant No.10 has separately filed the written statement and reply to the application under Order 39, rt Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which are part of the record.
10. During the pendency of the suit, application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, bearing OMP No. 1191 of 2025 was filed by defendants No.18 and 19. The said defendants averred in the application that they being a necessary party to the suit land are required to be impleaded as defendants No.18 and 19 in the present proceedings. The said application came up for consideration before this Court on 12 th December, 2025, whereby the said application was allowed and defendants No.18 & 19 were ordered to be impleaded as party defendants in the present proceedings. Defendants No.18 and 19 filed their ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 8 written statement along with reply to the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. An application under Order 39, Rule 4 .
of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC bearing OMP No. 1192 of 2025 has been filed for vacation of ad-interim injunction passed by this court, dated 02.05.2025.
11. In reply to the interim application bearing OMP No. of 380 of 2025 on behalf of defendants No.18 and 19, it has been stated that the present applicant/plaintiff is not entitled for any rt discretionary relief from this Court on account of suppression of true and material facts from this Court. It has been stated that the plaintiff/applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands.
It has further been stated that perusal of the documents filed with the plaint reveals that applicant/plaintiff was well aware of the entire factual matrix specifically the fact that defendants No.18 and 19 are having right in respect of part of the suit property, on the basis of a duly registered lease deed executed in their favour.
Further, it has been stated that documents further reveal that plaintiff-applicant prior to the filing of the suit had specific knowledge that the replying defendants being lessees were in the ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 9 process of utilizing the land leased out in their favour and the plaintiff-applicant had no subsisting right left in the property .
leased out to the replying defendants. That the plaintiff intentionally and willfully has not impleaded defendants No.18 and 19 as party to the suit and and further failed to disclose the true and material facts as regards cancellation of lease deeds of which were earlier registered in the name of the plaintiff. Neither the factum of cancellation of lease deeds dated 26.05.2011 and rt 27.05.2011, which have been got voluntarily cancelled by the plaintiff-applicant himself has been disclosed in the plaint nor the factum of execution and registration of lease deed dated 31.01.2025 by defendants No.2 to 6 and 9 in favour of the replying defendants was disclosed by the plaintiff-applicant.
12. As per defendants No.18 and 19, since there is material concealment of facts, therefore, the plaintiff-applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief. It has been submitted that lease deed dated 26.05.2011, registered as document No. 219 of 2011 on 28.05.2011, was duly cancelled by deed of cancellation dated 21.04.2023 and the perusal of the same reveals that ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 10 plaintiff-applicant himself got lease deed dated 26.05.2011 cancelled. After the cancellation of the said lease deed, the lessors .
duly executed a registered lease deed in favour of the replying defendants on 31.01.2025. It has been further submitted that prior to filing of the suit, one of the replying defendant was also named by the plaintiff-applicant in the complaint made by plaintiff of to the police and to the revenue officials, yet for the reasons best known to the plaintiff the persons directly affected on account of rt filing of suit was not arrayed as a party.
13. It has further been averred that the applicant-plaintiff had malafide intention and acted with ulterior motive not to disclose/plead true, material, necessary and complete facts while filing the present suit as well as the present application. Therefore, on account of suppression of material facts, the plaintiff-applicant misled this Court by prevailing upon this Court for passing of an ad interim order. That the plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary relief from this Court, hence, it has been prayed that the application is liable to be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 1114. Defendants No.18 and 19 have also filed an application bearing OMP No. 1192 of 2025, under Order 39 Rule 4 read with .
Section 151 of the CPC for vacation of the ad interim injunction passed by this Court on 02.05.2025 in OMP No. 380 of 2025.
15. The plaintiff/applicant has filed reply to the said application and has reiterated averments made in the plaint and of application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC and has prayed for the dismissal of the same.
rt
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the record carefully.
17. The plaintiff-applicant has approached this Court on the basis of lease deeds dated 26.05.2011, 27.05.2011 and further fresh lease deed dated 31.03.2022 by seeking decree for declaration that the plaintiff is in peaceful and legal possession of the suit property and further a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from interfering, dispossessing, ousting, damaging, alienating, creating any charge or third party rights and further restraining the defendants from changing and transferring the suit land in any ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 12 manner during the subsistence of the lease period which is valid upto 31.03.2041 as per freshly executed lease deed dated .
31.03.2022.
18. The documents, which the plaintiff has placed on record, show that lease deed was executed on 26.05.2011 between Shri Bali Ram, Shri Lot Ram and Shri Hari Singh with the of present plaintiff Ashok Kumar. As per the stipulation as made in the lease deed, the currency of the said deed was from 15.05.2011 rt to 31.03.2046. The second lease deed dated 26.05.2011 was executed by Shri Goverdhan son of Shri Kamal Chand with the plaintiff and the duration of the said lease deed was also from 25.05.2011 to 31.03.2046. Third lease deed, which has been appended with the record, was executed by Shri Subhash Chand, Shri Lal Chand and Tikam Ram with the present plaintiff/applicant on 27.05.2011 and the duration of the said agreement was also from 25.05.2011 to 31.03.2046.
19. Thereafter, notarized lease deed, which has been placed on record, dated 31.03.2022 executed by Shri Hari Singh, Shri Raj Kumar, Shri Gulab Singh, Smt. Gilma Devi Shri Ram ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 13 Prakash, Shri Tej Singh, Smt. Lata Devi, Smt. Tejwanti and Smt. Hima Devi, being lessor, with the plaintiff/applicant, who has been .
referred as lessee in the said lease deed. The duration of the said lease deed was from 25.05.2011 to 31.03.2046 on the yearly lease amount of Rs.1,95,000/-. The second notarized lease deed dated 31.03.2022 has been executed between Goverdhan and plaintiff of Ashok Kumar and the duration of the said lease deed was also from 25.05.2011 to 31.03.2046 on the yearly lease amount of rt Rs.1,50,000/-. The third notarized lease deed dated 31.03.2022 was executed between Tikam Ram, Amar Singh, Hem Raj, Smt. Tara Devi, Abhishek, Diksha and Hima Devi and the plaintiff Ashok Kumar.
20. The defendants have placed on record cancellation of lease agreement dated 31.03.2022 of the lease deed dated 26.05.2011 registered as document No.219/2011 dated 28.05.2011. It was agreed between the parties that they shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the cancellation agreement and none of the parties shall violate the same and that the lease deed dated 28.05.2011 will be treated as cancelled, null ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 14 and void. The said cancellation deed was signed by Shri Hari Singh and present plaintiff as also witnessed by Goverdhan and .
Tikam Ram. Similarly, the cancellation deed dated 21.04.2023, has also been placed on record, which was entered between Raj Kumar, Gulab Singh, Gilma Devi, Ram Prakash, Tej Singh, Hima Devi and plaintiff Ashok Kumar. It was agreed that lease deed of which was executed between the parties on 26.05.2011 and registered as document No. 219/2011, on 28.05.2011 rt shall be deemed to be cancelled.
21. The defendants have also placed on record copy of the lease deed dated 31.01.2025, as executed by defendants in favour of Nitu Rana wife of Shri Sandeep Rana and Shri Atul Thakur, present defendants No.18 and 19. As per the said lease deed, the defendants have agreed to lease out Khata/Khatauni No. 40/48, Khasra Nos. 400, 401, 402, 403/3 (3049)3554 share) out of land measuring 00-35-54 hectare i.e. 00-30-49 hectare. Khata/Khatauni No. 194 min/230 min, Khasra Nos. 397/1, 407/1 (187/553 share), land measuring 00-05-53 hectare i.e. 00-01-87 hectare, situated in Muhal Bahang Phati Burua, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. It has ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 15 been stipulated in the lease deed dated 31.01.2025 that the possession of the abovementioned premises has already been .
delivered by the first party to the second party on 01.02.2025 for the development of land but the lease period shall start from 1st August, 2025 to 31st July, 2045.
22. Admittedly, the plaintiff/applicant has not disclosed in of the plaint with respect to the cancellation of lease deeds which were executed between the parties on 26.05.2011 and 27.05.2011.
rt The submission as made by Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned senior counsel for defendants No.18 and 19 is valid and genuine that the plaintiff/applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands and he is right in making the submission that the relief of injunction is an equitable and discretionary relief, a person, who seeks equity and discretion in his favour, should approach the Court with clean hands. From the pleadings, it reveal that all the facts which emerge from pleadings of the parties, have not been pleaded by the plaintiff.
23. The plaintiff is solely relying upon lease deeds dated 26.05.2011, 27,05.2011 and 31.03.2022. The factum of cancellation ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 16 of the said lease deeds has neither been pleaded nor cancellation deed has been filed with the plaint. The averments, as made in .
the plaint, are also deceptive. The plaintiff/applicant, in para-12 of the plaint, has stated that the defendants in connivance with their agents and certain persons, who did not had any right or title over the suit land have illegally demolished the buildings, structures, of fixtures swings and even damaged the temple of Lord Shiva which has caused substantial damage and the plaintiff has suffered a rt lost to the tune of Rs.5-6 crores. Learned senior counsel has taken this Court through the record which shows that the plaintiff was well aware of the fact that the suit land has been leased to defendants No.18 and 19. The plaintiff has placed on record copy of undated letter, which was addressed by the plaintiff to the SHO, Manali, whereby, it has been stated that on the night of 22.03.2025 at around 12 A.M., Atul from Kangra, along with a group of goons and a JCB, forcefully demolished his building, causing him a loss of Rs.6-7 crore. To the same effect, there is a complaint at page 251 of the documents, which has been addressed to the Tehsildar, Manali, whereby in para-3 of the said ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 17 document, it has been stated by the plaintiff that just ten days ago, he learned from his external sources that they had illegally .
leased out the land bearing Khasra No. 400, 401, 402 and 403 to another party.
24. To the similar effect, there is undated complaint regarding a fraud, filed by Ashok Kumar, to the Dy. S.P., Manali, in of which, it has been stipulated that Shri Hari Singh openly admitted the leasing of the land to someone else. He stated that do rt whatever you want to do. The documents of the plaintiff when read along with the pleadings, also reveal that plaintiff was very much aware about the execution of the lease deed in favour of defendants No. 18 and 19 prior to the institution of the suit. In the present case, the suit has been instituted on 11.04.2025 and the execution of the lease deed in favour of defendants No.18 and 19 is dated 31.01.2025, was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and he failed to disclose the said fact before this Court. The conduct of the plaintiff shows that he has suppressed the material facts from this Court and persuaded this Court to pass the ad-
interim injunction.
::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 1825. Admittedly, lease deed dated 31.01.2025 has been executed in favour of defendants No.18 and 19 after cancellation .
of lease deeds dated 26.05.2011 & 27.05.2011 as executed in favour of the plaintiff/applicant. Once lease deeds dated 26.05.2011 & 27.05.2011 have been cancelled which were executed in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter fresh lease deed of dated 31.01.2025 executed in favour of defendants No.18 and 19, the plaintiff has failed to show the prima facie case in his favour.
rt Cancellation deeds dated 31.03.2022 and 21.04.2023 have been placed on record as Annexure R-1/10 and Annexure R-1 at pages 145 and 112 of the paper book, which show that after cancellation of the lease deeds dated 26.05.2011 and 27.05.2011 registered as document Nos. 219/2011 & 218/2011, dated 28.05.2011 and 211/2011 dated 27.05.2011, the possession of the suit land was handed over to the defendants. The said averment in the cancellation deeds falsify the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit land. Similarly, the recital in para-6 of lease deed dated 31.01.2025 shows that possession of the premises ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 19 have been delivered by the first party to defendants No.18 and 19 on 01.02.2025 for the development of the land.
.
26. In order to make out a prima facie case for interim injunction, the applicant/plaintiff has to pass the triplicate test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The plaintiff/applicant has failed to demonstrate that he has got prima of facie case in his favour. The plaintiff/applicant is primarily basing his claim on the strength of the lease deeds which were entered rt between the parties on dated 26.05.2011, 27.05.2011 and unregistered notarized lease deeds dated 31.03.2022. Now, on the basis of lease deed dated 31.01.2025, which has been executed in favour of defendants No.18 and 19 , the possession of the suit land was delivered to them for the development of the same and they are in possession of same. Meaning thereby, on the strength of lease deed dated 31.01.2025, which was executed in favour of defendants No. 18 and 19, it is not the plaintiff/applicant, rather it is defendants who have prima facie case in their favour. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the defendants and in case the defendants are injuncted from ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 20 utilizing and developing the suit land, in that event, they would suffer huge and irreparable loss.
.
27. Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the parameters for grant of interim injunction. In Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and others vs. Coca Cola Co. and others, (1995)5 SCC 545, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
of "43. The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the rt exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the following tests - (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 21 trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he .
could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the 'balance of convenience' lies. [see:Wander Ltd.& Anr. v,. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (supp) SCC 727 at pp. 731-32]. In order to protect the defendant while granting an interlocutory injunction in of his favour the Court can require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour rt at the trial.
44 to 46 XXXXXXXXXXXXX
47. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant case GBC had approached the High Court for the injunction order, granted earlier, to be vacated.
Under order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 22 honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under order 39 Rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the .
ad-interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings."
28. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Seema Arshad Zaheer and Ors. vs. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai and of others, (2006) 5 SCC 282 has held as under:-
"30.
rt The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff : (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of defendant's rights or likely infringement of defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.
31. It is true that in cases relating to orders for demolition of buildings, irreparable loss may occur if the structure is demolished even before trial, and an opportunity to establish by evidence that the structure ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 23 was authorized and not illegal. In such cases, where prima facie case is made out, the balance of convenience automatically tilts in favour of plaintiff and a temporary injunction will be issued to preserve status quo. But where .
the plaintiffs do not make out a prima facie case for grant of an injunction and the documents produced clearly show that the structures are unauthorized, the court may not grant a temporary injunction merely on the ground of sympathy or hardship. To grant a temporary injunction, of where the structure is clearly unauthorized and the final order passed by the Commissioner (of the Corporation) after considering the entire material directing demolition, rt is not shown to suffer from any infirmity, would be to encourage and perpetuate an illegality. We may refer to the following observations of this Court in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu [1999 (6) SCC 464] made in a different context :
"This Court in numerous decisions has held that no consideration should be shown to the builder or any other person where construction is unauthorized. This dicta is now almost bordering the rule of law. Stress was laid by the appellant and the prospective allottees of the shops to exercise judicial discretion in moulding the relief. Such a discretion cannot be exercised which encourages illegality or perpetuates an illegality. Unauthorised construction, if it is illegal and cannot be compounded, has to be demolished. There is no way out. Judicial discretion cannot be guided by expediency. Courts are not free from ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 24 statutory fetters. Justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. Judges are not entitled to exercise discretion wearing the robes of judicial discretion and pass orders based solely on their .
personal predilections and peculiar dispositions. Judicial discretion wherever it is requires to be exercised has to be in accordance with law and set legal principles."
of
32. Where the lower court acts arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely in the exercise of its discretion, the appellate court will interfere. Exercise of discretion by granting a rt temporary injunction when there is 'no material', or refusing to grant a temporary injunction by ignoring the relevant documents produced, are instances of action which are termed as arbitrary, capricious or perverse.
When we refer to acting on 'no material' (similar to 'no evidence'), we refer not only to cases where there are total dearth of material, but also to cases where there is no relevant material or where the material, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the exercise of discretion. In this case, there was 'no material' to make out a prima facie case and therefore, the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, was justified in interfering in the matter and vacating the temporary injunction granted by the trial court."
29. A perusal of the judgments shows that the conduct of the party is very material while granting or declining the interim injunction. It has been laid down that the Court has to look to the ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 25 conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. It .
was laid down that since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he of was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and rt honest. It has further been held that these considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of temporary injunction but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad-interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings.
30. In the present case, the conduct of the plaintiff shows that he has suppressed and concealed material facts from the Court and he was well aware of the execution of lease deed dated 31.01.2025 in favour of the defendants and the said fact is corroborated by the documents which have been placed on record by him as also by the defendants. It shows that the plaintiff was ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 26 well aware about the lease deed in favour of defendants No.18 and 19 and despite knowing the said facts, he intentionally and .
willfully did not array them as party defendants/respondents and obtained ad interim injunction in his favour. After the cancellation of the lease deed executed in favour of the plaintiff/applicant, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie case does not exist in of favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff/applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of interim injunction.
rt After cancellation of the
lease deed, other lease deed was executed in favour of
defendants No.18 and 19 and possession was delivered to them for the development of the plot.
31. The plaintiff is mainly relying upon unregistered notarized lease deeds dated 31.03.2022. The learned senior counsel for the defendants has rightly submitted that on the strength of registered lease deed dated 31.01.2025, it is the defendants who have got prima facie case in their favour.
32. Hon'ble Apex Court in Hemalatha (D) by LRs. vs. Tukaram (d) by LRs. & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 6640 of 2010, decided on 22.01.2026, has held that registered sale deed carries with it a ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 27 formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts .
high decree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a "sham". The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
of
31. It is a settled position of law that a registered Sale Deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and rt genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a "sham". Adopting the principles enunciated in Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 353 1, Jamila Begum (Dead) Through Lrs.
vs. Shami Mohd. (Dead) Through Lrs. and Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 727 2, and Rattan Singh and Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 300 3, this Court reiterates that the burden of proof of displace this presumption rests heavily upon the challenger. Such a challenge can only be sustained if the party provides material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the Deed was never intended to operative as bona fide transfer of title.
"(1)27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 28 evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption......"
.
"(2) 16. Sale deed dated 21-12-1970 in favour of Jamila Begum is a registered document and the registration of the sale deed reinforces valid execution of the sale deed. A registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to of show that the transaction is not valid in law......"
" (3) 33. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the rt courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered......" reiterates that the burden of proof to displace this presumption rests heavily upon the challenger. Such a challenge can only be sustained if the party provides material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the Deed was never intended to operate as a bona fide transfer of title.
32. The grounds typically accepted to challenge a registered Deed at the instance of the vendee/executant are fraud or want of capacity in any party or mistake of fact or fundamental illegality like where the Deed was executed under deceit or sold by a fraudster who did not own the land or where the Deed was executed without consideration, namely, if no money or value was actually exchanged ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 29 despite recitals in the Deeds or where there was coercion or intimidation like where the seller was forced to sign without free consent.
.
33. While the aforementioned grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive, this Court must caution against the growing tendency to challenge registered instruments 'at the drop of a hat'. If the sanctity of registered documents is diluted, it would erode public confidence in property transactions and jeopardize the security of titles. In a society governed by the of Rule of Law, registered documents must inspire certainty;
they cannot be rendered precarious by frivolous litigation. rt PLEADING STANDARDS AND THE RULE AGAINST CLEVER DRAFTING
34. The person alleging that a registered Deed is a sham must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading by making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material particulars in his pleadings and evidence. This Court is of the view that the test akin to a test under Order VI Rule 4 CPC is applicable to such a pleading and clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action would not be permitted and a clear right to sue would have to be shown in the plaint.
33. In the present case, the plaintiff despite knowing the fact that the registered deed has been executed in favour of the defendants No. 18 and 19, has failed to challenge the same, which draws adverse inference against the plaintiff/applicant. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie case in his favour.
::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS 3034. Consequently, after dismissing the application filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, .
the ad-interim injunction order dated 02.05.2025 is ordered to be vacated. The application filed by defendants No.18 and 19 under Order 39, Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for vacation of ad-interim order is allowed.
of
35. Before parting, it is made clear that any observations made here-in-above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion rt on the merits of the main case and the same shall be adjudicated upon uninfluenced by any observation made here- in-above, which are only for the purpose of the instant application.
(Romesh Verma) Judge 14th May, 2026.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 12:36:36 :::CIS