Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. It is next contended by the appellant that the vendors of the plaintiff did not challenge the 2012 deed at any point of time and as such, the plaintiff, who stepped into the shoes of the said vendors, is precluded from challenging the same.

11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant next argues that insofar as the second injunction application of the plaintiff, which was also disposed of by the impugned order, is concerned, no opportunity of filing written objection was given to the defendant no.1/appellant with 2025:CHC-AS:1031-DB regard to the same. Thus, the order is bad for violation of the established principle of natural justice, Audi Alteram Partem.

23. The prayers made in the second injunction application already found place in the first injunction application. The second injunction application was, in fact, prompted due to further cause of action having arisen. Hence, there could not arise any occasion to grant further opportunity to the defendant to file written objection thereto. The injunction application was initially fixed on February 26, 2025, which was declared as a holiday subsequently in the Trial Court, due to which 2025:CHC-AS:1031-DB a put-up petition had to be filed on February 27, 2025 for fixation of a date for hearing of the injunction application. It is submitted that the defendant no.1, who was all along participating in the suit, ought to have been more diligent in filing his written objection.

60. The second injunction application was merely prompted by further cause of action and can be read as a supplementary pleading to the first injunction application, more so since the prayers contained in the second injunction application were already made in the first such application and were subsumed by the prayers made in the first injunction application.

61. In fact, in the second injunction application, the prayers of the first were curtailed insofar as the possession of the plaintiff is concerned.

62. Thus, it is immaterial as to whether any further opportunity could be given to the appellant to file written objection to the second injunction application. Rather, having lost its opportunity to deal with the self- same facts as pleaded the first injunction application, such right of filing of written objection could not be reopened in the garb of granting such opportunity in respect of the second injunction application.

63. The contents of the first and the second injunction application were substantially the same insofar as the germane facts are concerned. Hence, even without the second injunction application, the prayers of the first injunction application would cover that of the second and the learned Trial Judge acted well within her jurisdiction in granting the same.