High Court cannot dismiss substantive portion of suit while hearing appeal against rejection of interim injunction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court: In a civil appeal against Bombay High Court’s decision dismissing the suit while considering an application for an injunction, the Division Bench of PS Narasimha and Joymala Bagchi, JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned decision and restored the appellants’ suit filed before the Bombay City Civil Court holding that while considering an appeal against the order of the Trial Court refusing to grant an injunction pending the disposal of the suit, the High Court cannot dismiss the substantive portion of the suit itself and direct that the remaining part of the suit be agitated in a suit filed by the defendant.

Background

The three brothers were the co-tenants of the suit property. The present appellants and respondents are descendants of the brothers. The appellants’ case was that by a notarised affidavit respondent no. 1’s predecessor transferred his rights in the tenanted premises to appellants’ predecessor, their predecessor-in-interest. Subsequently, after the death of the respondent’s predecessor, his widow signed a declaration relinquishing her rights in the suit property in favour of the appellant.

Relying on the same, the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in which their prayer for interim relief of temporary injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court. In appeal against this order, the High Court by the order impugned herein virtually dismissed the suit. The respondent had also instituted his own suit before the High Court against the appellants for recovery of possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits with respect to the same property.

Analysis and Decision

The Court noted that the High Court after recording of the admission or a concession by respondent 1, came to an extraordinary conclusion that certain prayers in the suit have therefore become infructuous. Further, the Court took note of the High Court’s conclusion that the agreements, relied on by the appellants for a declaratory relief, could not be taken on record as they were unregistered and an order or decree could not be granted in appellants’ favour in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Criticising the said stand taken by the Court, the Court said that there was no occasion for the High Court to consider the two agreements while deciding an application for interim relief. The legality, validity, and admissibility of those documents were matters to be considered in the suit during trial. Regarding the part that the High Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court and granted injunction, the Court upheld the same in view of the statement or concession of respondent no.1/defendant no. 1. However, the High Court dismissed prayers in the appellants’ suit and then proceeded to direct that the other prayers in the suit filed by the appellants, namely prayers should be considered in the suit filed by respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 for recovery of possession.

The Court stated that, in an appeal to the High Court against the order of the Trial Court refusing to grant injunction pending disposal of the suit, the High Court could not have dismissed the substantive portion of the suit itself and direct that the remaining part of the suit be agitated in a suit filed by the defendant. The Court found the High Court’s approach to be completely illegal and unsustainable in law.