Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Mr Kulkarni invited our attention to the impugned order at Exh.77 and submitted that the learned Commercial Court was pleased to grant interim mandatory injunction. The relief granted by the trial Court is nothing but granting final relief. What is remained for final adjudication of the suit. According to Mr Kulkarni, the interim mandatory injunction is to be granted only to restore the status quo. Mr Kulkarni has placed his reliance in case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 867 and Kishore Kumar and Ors., vs. Parveen Kumar Singh, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1474.

30. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties.


                                   GROUNDS OF APPEAL

i)      Maintainability of suit;
ii)     Jurisdiction;
iii)    Non-compliance of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act;
iv)     Grant of interim mandatory injunction at interim stage;
v)      Relief of mandatory injunction barred by limitation

31. First we shall deal with the issue of jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. It is an admitted position that respondent/original plaintiff has initially filed the suit against the appellant/defendant before the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Rahata. The appellant/defendant raised objection about maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court in view of nature of dispute between the parties. The appellant/original defendant moved an application Comm.Apeal 1 & 2 - 2021 raising the issue of maintainability of the suit and after hearing both the sides and on merits, the Civil Court has recorded finding that the lis between the parties must be entertained by the Commercial Court and not by the Civil Court. At the instance of appellant, the suit came to be transferred to Commercial Court. The order passed by the Civil Court about non- maintainability of the suit before it was accepted by both the sides and reached finality. None of the parties challenged that order before the appropriate Court.

38. Now coming to the main ground regarding grant of relief of interim mandatory injunction in favour of respondent/original plaintiff, both the sides have canvassed their arguments on this aspect by placing reliance on the citations.

Comm.Apeal 1 & 2 - 2021

39. It is well settled legal position that in view of provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court is empowered to grant relief of interim mandatory injunction. The Civil Court has inherent power to issue interim injunction when it considers it absolutely necessary to meet the ends of justice to do so. It is while exercising such inherent powers that the Court in exceptional circumstances of the case has jurisdiction to grant such relief. The inherent power which is vested in the Court is to maintain the status quo as of the date of the suit till the disposal of the suit. It is not to disturb the status quo as of the date of the suit. When the suit is one for possession, normally, interim mandatory injunction cannot be issued pending the final decision of the suit. In case of Metro Marins & Anr. Vs. Bonus Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the final relief cannot be granted at interim stage when the suit itself is for eviction and possession of the property. Grant of mandatory injunction is not correct.

40. If the relief of interim mandatory injunction is allowed to continue, then what would remain in the suit to adjudicate between the parties. The issues are yet to be framed. The parties are yet to adduce the evidence. According to their pleadings, they will cross-examine their respective witnesses according to their legal stand. Admittedly, on the date of the suit, appellant/original defendant is in possession of the suit premises. There are triable issues involved including settlement of accounts. If these peculiar facts of the case on hand are considered, certainly, it is not a fit case to grant relief of interim mandatory injunction. The trial Court seems to have granted interim mandatory injunction in a casual manner without taking into consideration the consequences of it. The impugned order of granting interim mandatory injunction is certainly defective in the eyes of law. Having Comm.Apeal 1 & 2 - 2021 regard to the facts of the case on hand, It cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.