Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28. The object behind these provisions, as already pointed out, is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and also to prevent conflicting decrees in respect of the same subject matter. I am unable to fathom a position where a Civil Court grants a decree for permenant injunction restraining a owner/co- http://www.judis.nic.in  C.R.P.Nos. 718, 2289 & 3018 of 2018 amd C.M.P.Nos. 14324, 17525 & 17079 of 2018 owner from alienating the property. Thereafter a suit for partition is filed and the said co-owner, who has been injuncted by a decree for permanent injunction of a competent Court, is allotted a share in the property. Grant of such injunctions would lead to such analomous situations. The legislature had incorporated various provisions in the C.P.C as well as the Specific Relief Act only to prevent such analomous situations arising out of such ill-advised suits. The Trial court fell in error in concluding that the rejection of these grounds would be a rejection based on the consideration of the defence. I am convinced that these three suits should not be retained on the file of the Courts for even a moment longer. I am of the considered opinion, these three suits are abuse of process of Court and it is an attempt to prevent the defendants from exercising the proprietory right over the property.