Ps Merlin Developers LLP vs. Salma Sultana And Ors

Facts

PS Merlin Developers LLP (appellant) filed an interpleader suit against Ms. Salma Sultana (respondent no. 1, intending purchaser) and the Bank (respondent no. 3, financier). An agreement for sale dated November 20, 2018, for a flat at a consideration of Rs. 1,19,35,408/- plus GST and statutory charges was entered into. A Tripartite Agreement dated November 24, 2018, was executed among the appellant, respondent no. 1, and the bank. Respondent no. 1 defaulted on payments, leading the bank to invoke its rights under the Tripartite Agreement. The appellant sought to discharge its obligations by filing the interpleader suit. The Trial Court refused an ex parte ad interim order of injunction, instead deciding to first adjudicate the maintainability of the suit and rejection of the plaint.

Held

The High Court held that the Trial Court's decision to keep the injunction application in abeyance and suo motu decide on the maintainability of the suit and rejection of the plaint was an implicit rejection of the ex parte ad interim injunction. The Court noted that an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC is maintainable in such circumstances. The Court directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 11,47,914/- (the surplus amount calculated by the plaintiff) with the Trial Court within two weeks. The Trial Court was directed to decide the maintainability of the suit and, if found maintainable, to frame and decide issues expeditiously. The bank and borrower were granted liberty to appear before the Trial Court and file their opposition to the injunction application. The Trial Court was ordered to decide the injunction application and the point of maintainability within a fortnight after the exchange of affidavits. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merit of the injunction application or the plea of maintainability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing to pass an ex parte ad interim order of injunction solely on the ground that the maintainability of the suit or rejection of the plaint had to be adjudicated first, despite a prima facie case being made out? Petitioner/Appellant's Arguments: The appellant argued that the Trial Court erred by suo motu deciding on the maintainability of the suit and rejection of the plaint without hearing the respondents, thereby implicitly rejecting the injunction application. They contended that the refusal to grant an ex parte injunction when respondents were not present was improper, and the appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC was maintainable. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the respondents (intended purchaser and bank) were served and had the liberty to appear and file opposition to the injunction application.