Under which circumstances can the court set aside temporary injunction order granted after hearing both parties?

The order which has been vacated by the Trial Court is an ad interim order and not a temporary order on injunction which had been adjudicated upon by the Trial Court after hearing the parties in its proper perspective. Order XXXIX Rule (4) reads as under:

"4. Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside.-

Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the Court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order:

Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in an affidavit supporting such application a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interest of justice:

Provided further that where an order for injunction has been passed after giving a party an opportunity of being heard, the order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting side has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party."

16. A perusal of the above would go on to show that the order of injunction may be discharged or varied or set aside by the Court on an application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order. The proviso further provides that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit supporting such application, a party knowingly makes a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular whereby the temporary injunction was obtained by way of false and misleading statement and the same was granted without notice to the opposite party, the Court shall vacate the injunction. Similarly, the second proviso further provides that the injunction order can be set aside in changed circumstances or in case of causing undue hardship to a party.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-1857-2020, CR-1858-2020 and CR-1859-2020

Decided On: 03.09.2020

Ravinder and Ors.  Vs.  Gram Panchayat, Damla and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

Citation: MANU/PH/0787/2020

Print Page

Whether conduct of defendant who is seeking vacation of interim order should also be fair and honest?

  The Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. (supra) fell for consideration in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. MANU/SC/0472/1995 : (1995) 5 SCC 545 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that under Order 39 CPC the jurisdiction of the court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. It is relevant to reproduce paragraph No. 47 as under:

"47. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant case GBC had approached the High Court for the injunction order, granted earlier, to be vacated. Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings". {Para 33}

34. In the present case, the trial court, while granting temporary injunction, has discussed that during the pendency of the suit the defendant No. 1, the appellant herein, transferred the suit schedule property in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and those defendants, in turn, transferred the part of the suit property in favour of third persons. The defendants/appellants invoking the jurisdiction of this court are therefore responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of by the plaintiff/respondent before the court below and cannot be prima facie said to be equitable in his dealings. In Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly laid down that the considerations of the conduct being fair and honest will arise not only in respect of an applicant seeking an order of injunction but also in respect of the party approaching the court for vacating the ad interim or temporary injunction already granted in the pending suit or proceeding.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 43 and 45 of 2021

Decided On: 25.01.2022

K. Ravi Prasad Reddy and Ors.  Vs.  G. Giridhar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C. Praveen Kumar and Ravi Nath Tilhari, JJ.

Author: Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Citation: MANU/AP/0075/2022.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page