What is distinction between adjudication under S 9A of CPC and O 7 R11 of CPC?

 Hence, as indicated hereinabove, the sum and substance of
the case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants i.e. Defendant Nos.1 and 2
have jointly conspired to grab the properties of the Plaintiff at throw away
prices to the loss of the Plaintiff. As indicated above, though the averments
revolving around the conduct of the Defendant No.1 are appearing in the
plaint   significantly   in   the   adjudication   of   the   application   filed   under

Section 9A, no evidence was led by the Plaintiff. The Trial Court has
proceeded on a totally erroneous basis by accepting the averments made
in the plaint when the same have not been supported by any evidence led
by the Plaintiff. The averments which revolve around the conduct of the
Defendant No.1 could not have been accepted by the Trial Court without
the same being supported by any evidence of the Plaintiff. In so far as
Section 9A is concerned, it is well settled that the adjudication of the
preliminary issue framed under Section 9A is in the nature of a mini trial
as the decision rendered on the jurisdictional issue stands concluded and
is no more open for adjudication in the suit. The Trial Court did not
proceed on the basis that in the instant case the application was under
Section 9A but erroneously proceeded on the basis as if the application
was under Order VII Rule (11)(d) by accepting the averments in the plaint
and held that since it is the case of the Plaintiff that there is conspiracy, the
suit in  question  would  fit  within   the  exception  carved out  in  Mardia
Chemicals Limited's case (supra) and would therefore be maintainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.386 OF 2015
ICICI Bank Limited 
V
 Anil Printers Limited 
CORAM  :  R.M. SAVANT, J.
DATE      :  8th OCTOBER, 2015
Citation:2016(5) ALLMR695

Print Page

Whether court should hold mini trial at the stage of hearing of temporary injunction application?

It may not be appropriate for any Court to hold mini trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction. As noticed by the Division Bench that there are two documents which indicated that there was prima facie case to be investigated. Unless the sale certificate is set aside or declared to be a nullity, the same has legal validity and force. It cannot be said that no right could be derived from such certificate. Secondly, when the contesting respondents were in possession as evidenced by the record of rights, it can not be said that such possession is by a trespasser. The claim of the contesting respondents is in their own right.

Supreme Court of India

Anand Prasad Agarwalla vs Tarkeshwar Prasad And Ors on 9 May, 2001

Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Shivaraj V. Patil

Citation; 2002(1) ALLMR 694 SC

Print Page

Whether it is permissible for court to hold mini trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction?

 Interim order is passed on the basis of prima facie findings, which are tentative. Such order is passed as a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo till the matter is decided finally, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. The object of the interlocutory injunction is, to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. (vide Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. State of Assam vs. Tarkeshwar Prasad & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2367; and Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694)

24. Grant of an interim relief in regard to the nature and extent thereof depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as no strait-jacket formula can be laid down. There may be a situation wherein the defendant/respondent may use the suit property in such a manner that the situation becomes irretrievable. In such a fact situation, interim relief should be granted (vide M. Gurudas & Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan & Ors. AIR 2006 SC 3275; and Shridevi & Anr. vs. Muralidhar & Anr. (2007) 14 SCC 721.

25. Grant of temporary injunction, is governed by three basic principles, i.e. prima facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable injury, which are required to be considered in a proper perspective in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. But it may not be appropriate for any court to hold a mini trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction (Vide S.M. Dyechem Ltd. Vs. M/s. Cadbury (India) Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2114; and Anand Prasad Agarwalla (supra).
REPORTABLE

Supreme Court of India

Zenit Mataplast P.Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 11 September, 2009

Bench: Altamas Kabir, B.S. Chauhan

Citation;2009(6)BomCR93,(2009)10SCC388, 

Print Page