Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Sabina, J. dismissed the appeal on the ground that party will suffer an irreparable loss if the application was allowed. 

An appeal was made challenging the order which was made on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and  2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 

 Rohit Khandelwal, counsel for the appellant submits that that the property-in-question was owned by Shobhagmal Jain which the appellant agreed to purchase. Earnest money was paid to the original owner. Thereafter, the original owner executed Power of Attorney in favor of his son. Son of the owner executed a sale deed in favor of the respondent. Appellant filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed in his favor. It was further submitted that the original owner was ready to pay the sale consideration to the subsequent purchaser as his son wrongly sold the property-in-question. Thus an application for a temporary injunction was made.

High Court was required to see whether the plaintiff has a prima-facie case and balance of convenience in his favor and in case, the Temporary Injunction was not granted in favor of the plaintiff, he would suffer an irreparable loss. The court thus, after discussing the relevant question held that respondent can be said to be a bonafide purchaser for consideration. Hence, in case Temporary Injunction is granted in favor of the appellant, the respondent would suffer an irreparable loss as he would not be able to enjoy the property purchased by him in the manner he liked. Moreover, the principle of Lis Pendens would apply. Thus, no interference was made by the court. [Rakesh Makwana v. Vishant Infra Projects Llp, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 903, decided on 09-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Arun Palli, J. allowed the defendant to file the written statement (WS) in a civil suit even after the expiry of 90 days statutory period.

A civil suit was filed against the defendant on 08-09-2017. He caused his first appearance before the court on 29-11-2017 and the matter was adjourned to 08-01-2018 for filing of the written statement by the defendant. As no written statement was filed on that date, the matter was further adjourned to 19-02-2018. However, despite this last opportunity, the defendant failed to file written statement within the statutory time period of 90 days. Consequently, his defence was struck off. The defendant was in appeal against the said order.

The High Court noted that ex facie the defendant was granted two opportunities to file written statement after he caused the first appearance before the trial court. However, the Court was of the view that even if it was assumed that the defendant was remiss in pursuing his cause and failed to file written statement despite being given one last opportunity, yet the fact remained that if he was not granted one more opportunity, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. Giving due consideration to the said fact, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the defendant to file written statement on the next date of hearing already fixed by the trial court. It was also held that in case of default on part of the defendant in filing written statement even on that date, the defence will be deemed to be struck off. [Beant Singh v. Dilbagh Singh,2011 SCC OnLine P&H 15664: (2012) 3 RCR (Civil) 115 , decided on 01-06-2018]