When court will not grant injunction in favour of plaintiff?

A perusal of record further indicates that after obtaining
ad-interim order of status-quo from this Court, the appellant has
extended the temporary structure in the suit premises. A perusal of
the photographs produced on record by the Municipal Corporation as
well as by the intervenor clearly indicates such further extension
carried out by the appellant. In my view, the reliefs under the
provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are
equitable reliefs and are discretionary and such discretion can be
exercised by the Court only when the person has come to the Court
with clean hands and has not suppressed and/or material facts and
makes out a prima-facie case. In my view if a person violates the
order of status-quo granted by this Court, cannot be granted anyrelief by exercising discretionary power by Court. A perusal of the
order passed by the learned trial Judge clearly indicates that the
appellant was given an opportunity to produce all the documents. The
learned trial Judge considered each and every document produced
by the appellant before him and has rightly rejected the ad-interim
relief. Though this Court has granted sufficient opportunity to the
appellant to convince this Court that the suit structure was a pacca
structure and that the appellant was carrying on business in the suit
premises since 1961-1962. In my view, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant could not demonstrate any of these

crucial facts to seek any interim relief from this Court.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.75 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2015
Mohd. Ismail Gulam Shaikh 
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Anr.
 CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
 DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY, 2016.
Citation;2016(3) MHLJ247

Print Page

What are Basic principles for conduct of writ litigation?

On the basis of said Supreme Court judgments, following principles may be culled out:-

1. A writ remedy is an equitable one. While exercising extraordinary power a Writ Court certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Court.

2. Litigant before the Writ Court must come with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. He should disclose all facts without suppressing anything. Litigant cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back)/ conceal other facts.

3. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or mis representation which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.

4. If litigant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly or states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent R.P.No.161/2015 (Central Ware House & Ano. v. Union of India & Ano.) power to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty.

5. Such a litigant requires to be dealt with for Contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.

6. There is a compelling need to take a serious view in such matters to ensure purity and grace in the administration of justice.

7. The litigation in the Court of law is not a game of chess. The Court is bound to see the conduct of party who is invoking such jurisdiction.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gwalior bench

Central Warehouse Thr vs Union Of India Thr on 11 May, 2015

R.P.No.161/2015

Print Page

Whether party who makes false allegation against other side is entitled to get equitable relief?

 It is further contended on behalf of the
defendants that the First Appellate Court and the
High Court have failed in not applying the legal

principle laid down by this Court in the case of
Lourdu Mari David & Ors. (supra), wherein this Court
held that the party who seeks to avail of the
equitable jurisdiction of a court and specific
performance decree being equitable relief must come
to the court with clean hands. In other words, the
party who makes false allegations against the
defendants does not come with clean hands and
therefore, it is not entitled to the equitable relief

of specific performance decree from the court.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7835 OF 2014

PEMMADA PRABHAKAR & ORS.
Vs.
YOUNGMEN’S VYSYA ASSOCIATION & ORS. …
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Citation;2014(5)ALLMR921 SC,(2015)5 SCC 355

Print Page