Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.6. On 16.04.2016, the defendant brought building material and mason with the intention to change structure of the property under his possession so that the plaintiff may not be able to take possession of the property under the possession of defendant, for which a decree of possession has already been passed. The plaintiff lodged a complaint with the police on 16.04.2016 but the police did not take any action regarding the same. The defendant also extended threats to the plaintiff that he will make the construction in the shape of additions / alternations and change entire structure contrary to site plan of the plaintiff in the suit for possession so that at the time of execution of decree of possession the plaintiff may not be able to execute the decree of possession against him.

4. Defendant has opposed the application by way of written reply as well as by way of filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that defendant without prejudice to his legal right to file written statement to the plaint filed by the plaintiff within the prescribed period of limitation gives reply to the application under reply, in compliance of order dated 02.06.2016, passed by the Court and therefore, without going into the detailed facts of the plaintiff, limit it to the present application under reply. The present application seeking ex parte ad­interim injunction restraining the defendant thereby from making any alteration or structural changes in the suit property, is devoid of merits as it does not disclose a prima facie for grant of injunction. Further, there has not been any construction carried out by the defendant with intent to alter the structure of the suit property and if any act, as alleged though denied, has been carried out, the plaintiff has an equally efficacious relief by approaching the Supreme Court of India in contempt jurisdiction seeking vacation of status quo order dated 28.01.2016 passed in SLP No.CC/No.952/2016 whereby the defendant possession is protected and therefore, the defendant is not in illegal, unlawful and unauthorized possession as alleged by the plaintiff. The present application along with the suit is devoid of any merit as not disclose a prima facie case and also liable to be rejected under Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 to avoid multiplicity of proceeding. No addition, alternation or structural changes has been carried out by the defendant in the portion of suit property under his possession as alleged by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been unnecessarily harassing the defendant by filing false and frivolous case before the Court. The plaintiff has no case for grant of injunction and therefore, no case for grant of ad­interim injunction so as to prevent irreparable loss is made out. The plaintiff has no prima facie case and the likelihood of succeeding in the present suit is also very least in favour of the plaintiff on account of involvement of an important substantial of law in the aforesaid special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which have bearing on the entitlement of the plaintiff.

8. As per plaintiff, on 16.04.2016 defendant brought building material to suit premises change the structure of property and despite police complaint by plaintiff, no action has been taken. Hence, the present suit.

On the other hand, defendant has opposed the application on the ground that the plaint is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for being devoid of cause of action and moreover, plaintiff has efficacious remedy to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for contempt proceedings and for vacation of status quo order dated 28.01.2016. Moreover, as per defendant, defendant is not carrying any addition or alternation or structural changes in the premises.

Further, the defendant himself has stated in the reply that the defendant is not making any change / alteration / structural changes in the property and therefore, no harm will be caused to the defendant if the interim relief is granted in favour of plaintiff and clearly, balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff.

Further, if the defendant is not restrained from making structural changes in the premises, then definitely plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss because at present admittedly property is already in litigation and structural changes in the premises may hamper the execution proceedings which are already pending against defendant.