Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

VIII. Permanent Injunction against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 restraining them from alienating or creating third party interest by any mode with regard to the suit property.

IX. Cost of the Suit be awarded to the Plaintiff."

05. An application (I.A. No. 1/2021) was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC by the Appellant/plaintiff for granting temporary injunction against Defendants No.1 to 7 restraining them not to alienate or create 3rd party rights over the suit properties till final disposal of the suit, stating that plaintiff has demonstrated and established a prima facie case, balance of convenience in her favour and no harm or injury will be caused to the Defendants No. 1 to 7 if application for temporary injunction is allowed. On the other hand if it is not allowed, grave harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in any other terms. On the basis of above, prayer was made that an order of temporary injunction be issued against the Defendants No. 1 to 7 restraining them not to alienate or create third party rights over the suit‟s scheduled properties till final disposal of the suit. This application was contested by the Defendants on various grounds. Learned trial Court after affording opportunity of hearing, by impugned order dated 11.01.2025 allowed the application as mentioned herein-above. NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 8 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 10 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25

e) Plaintiff has asked for granting temporary injunction also against defendant No. 6 & 7 who are the Public Trusts but, both the Trusts are not represented through registrar of public trust of their own place and in absence of their being parties no injunction can be granted against defendant No. 6 & 7.

14. Per contra supporting the impugned order dated 11.01.2025 and order dated 28.03.2025 to the extent temporary injunction against alienation has been granted in favour of Plaintiff, learned Senior Counsel Shri R.S. Chhabra submits that learned trial Court after going through the material made available on record has passed the impugned orders which cannot be interfered with in these Misc. Appeals. He further submits that being legal heir of late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar, plaintiff has every right to claim her share in the properties which were earlier in the hands of late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar and thereafter in the possession of Defendants No. 1 to 3 after death of Shri Tukojirao Puar.

"30. 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 the plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the defendant's rights or likely infringement of the defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the 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."