LATEST

Suit for Injunction – “Whether the plaintiff who files a suit for injunction only claiming to be in possession can continue the suit once it is established that he is not in possession?” – Suit for injunction was not maintainable – The Courts should have dismissed the suit there and then

 

 (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER


  1. Injunction - Agreement was made years back stipulating no period for completion of transaction and the plaintiff would rely on a Will and a power of attorney as constituting proof of ownership - The suit is filed nearly 7 years subsequent to the agreement, it would be surely an issue in suit whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance - It is again a point for consideration in suit whether the suit was in time - Mere reference to status quo as ordered by this Court at the time of ordering notice cannot dictate the manner of disposal of the revision at the final stage. (173) P.L.R. 
  2. Injunction - An ad-interim injunction is normally issued when a very strong prima-facie case is made out by the plaintiff and the injury to the plaintiff is writ large if the defendant is not restrained from doing the activity which causes the injury to the plaintiff - In such a case the balance of convenience would obviously be in favour of the plaintiff - Since interim injunctions affect the right of a defendant, the principle of natural justice would warrant the defendant to be heard before an order adverse to the defendant's right is passed. (177) P.L.R.  (Del.)
  3. Injunction - Injunction could not be claimed when plaintiffs stand dispossessed from the suit property prior to the filing of the suit - The question of establishing settled possession did not, therefore, arise in relation to the properties that already stood cleared of any structures by demolition of whatever stood on the same  Property was vacant as on the date of the filing of the suit there was no question of the plaintiffs claiming settled possession of the said property. (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 801
  4. Injunction - Plaintiff who sues for injunction must establish the same - In this case, the property admittedly was held in the hands of husband till he died and, therefore, would give primacy of benefit of an inference that the wife was running the business after her husband's lifetime raher than an older mother of the deceased.      (180) P.L.R. 
  5. Injunction - Street is just five feet wide, which is being used as a passage to the house of the respondent-plaintiffs - Since it is merely a five feet wide road, projection/sun shade, if constructed towards the street, would virtually leave no space there and would also effect the very movement of respondent-plaintiffs and utilization of the said street - It is not in dispute that the ownership of the land of the appellant-defendant is upto the wall of the building, which has been constructed and any construction, which is beyond the said wall, would amount to encroachment. (182) P.L.R.
  6. Injunction - Temporary Injunction - Conclusion of the lower appellate court that there is nothing on record to prove exclusive possession of either party on the suit land, the lower appellate court should not have vacated the status quo regarding possession of the suit land ordered by the trial court - Status quo regarding possession to be maintained by both the parties was the only order that should have been passed and had been rightly passed by the trial court. (173) P.L.R. 
  7. Injunction - Whether the member of the public could sue for injunction in respect of a public property even without making a public authority as party against any other member of public - The exception for any person to treat himself as aggrieved to take action is for commission of nuisance in the property -The law is that no special damage is required to be proved and it is possible for a person to take action as member of the public complaining of nuisance - There is not even an averment of nuisance anywhere in the plaint and the injunction was sought only on the assumed basis that the defendant cannot be permitted to do some act on a public property without taking exclusive permission from such authority.   (180) P.L.R. 
  8. Injunction - Wife entitled to a residence which is but a component of maintenance and if she is in possession of house that ought to be taken as sufficient for the relief of injunction to prevent the husband from evicting her - The Protection of Woman under the Domestic Violence Act recognizes through Section 26 that the provisions of the Act will be incorporated in any other civil or criminal proceeding - The right of residence in a shared household is available to the wife under the provisions of the Act and I apply Section 26 of the said Act to make possible a right of protection for wife to remain in the household that was once  shared - Restraint against alienation of the property is sought by the wife which also I would think is perfectly justified because Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act protects a woman to claim main  tenance and makes possible for charge over the property against any purchasers. (182) P.L.R.
  9. Injunction Order - Petitioner reiterated that police help is required to be granted to implement temporary  injunction - Defendants even denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and have pleaded that the plaintiff wants to take possession of the suit land from the defendants - In other words, the defendants have asserted their own possession over the suit land which would  prima facie  depict violation of injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff, necessitating grant of police help as sought for by the  plaintiff.  (173) P.L.R.  
  10. Suit for Injunction – “Whether the plaintiff who files a suit for injunction only claiming to be in possession can continue the suit once it is established that he is not in possession?” – Suit for injunction was not maintainable – The Courts should have dismissed the suit there and then – Suit for injunction was not maintainable – The Courts should have dismissed the suit there and then.(2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER