Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: amend injunction application in Keval vs Ashok on 2 August, 2010Matching Fragments
However, in the meanwhile, certain transactions took place with regard to letting out a premises owned by the plaintiff to some companies and in or around October 2006 the plaintiff came to know about certain illegal activities of the defendant and thereafter that complaint was filed. It is further submitted that, when the plaintiff came to know about the defendant's efforts to sell the partnership property of Natraj cinema to one Fame Group for Multiplex, the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.545 of 2007 in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, on 14.3.2007. Initially, a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.6874 of 2007 was filed in this Court wherein this Court granted an interim relief restraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 of the said writ petition from selling, mortgaging, leasing or developing the property of Natraj cinema, but, it is stated that the learned advocate appearing for the respondents made a false statement before the learned Single Judge that a caveat was filed on behalf of the respondents and, therefore, the order was not signed and, thereafter, after hearing the learned advocates for both the parties, an undertaking was filed by the respondents to the effect that they will not alienate the partnership property in question and, therefore, the interim relief granted earlier was ordered to continue till 30.3.2007. According to the plaintiff, finally, Special Civil Application No.6874 of 2007 was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the Notice of Motion application within 15 days. On 26.4.2007, a notice of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was registered and on 22.7.2007 a caution notice was published in Gujarat Samachar, a widely circulated vernacular newspaper, and a similar notice was published in the Times of India on 24.7.2007. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff filed application dated 29.10.2007 and, as per the order dated 24.10.2007, submitted amended plaint and amended application for interim injunction and other reliefs in Civil Suit No.545 of 2007 and the same was pending for hearing. It is the say of the plaintiff that on 26.3.2008, the impugned sale deed came to be executed since the notice of motion Exh.6/7 for interim relief was rejected by the trial court by order dated 24.10.2007.
12 Keeping in mind the above principles underlying Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, admittedly, the property in question, namely, Natraj cinema, came to be transferred as per the sale deeds dated 27.3.2008 and 10.4.2008. It is also true that two earlier sale deeds dated 11.5.2006, the origin of the above two sale deeds dated 27.3.2008 and 10.4.2008, were under challenge in Civil Suit No.545 of 2007, which was instituted on 14.3.2007, whereas, the notice of lis pendens under section 52 was issued on 26.4.2007. No doubt, this Court in the order passed in Appeal From Order No. 3 of 2008 and the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9411-9412 of 2008 preferred against the above order, had noticed the above facts. So far as Appeal From Order No. 3 of 2008 is concerned, in the order dated 27.3.2008, this Court [Coram: D.N. Patel, J. as His Lordship then was] had given tentative findings/observations for not believing the prima-facie case of the plaintiff. The above findings for deciding the issue involved in the present Appeal From Order may have some bearing but in view of the subsequent development, which took place in Appeal From Order No. 70 of 2010 and the permission granted by this Court to amend the plaint and to move an interim injunction application and the same is to be considered accordingly. The finding of the learned trial judge is based basically on three issues, namely;
13. In view of the prayers quoted hereinabove in Civil Suit No.545 of 2007 and the amended plaint, it was a suit for recovery of money as well as for declaration and injunction. No doubt, if the plaintiff succeeds in his case before the trial court, a decree can be passed in his favour and the plaintiff can be compensated in terms of money as claimed. The defendant-appellant herein had knowledge about pendency of the proceeding and the litigation between the parties. It is further not in dispute that the competent authority of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation granted permission to construct building on the suit property subject to certain conditions laid down in the letter of authority [raja-chitti] dated 26.4.2010. Therefore, according to this Court, pending the suit, any further alienation of the suit property may result into multiplicity of proceedings and the fact still remains that in Appeal From Order No. 3 of 2008, the learned Single Judge had given a specific direction to the trial court to finally hear and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 31.1.2009. However, in view of the subsequent development and the order passed in Appeal From Order No. 70 of 2010, the plaint was amended and the injunction as prayed for below application Exh.137 is granted in favour of the plaintiff.