Hashidhahani vs. Mubarak
Facts
The petitioner/appellant filed an appeal (AS(MD) No. 269 of 2021) against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2021 passed in O.S. No. 43 of 2014 by the Additional District Judge, Pudukottai. The original suit was filed for declaration, recovery of possession, and damages. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP(MD) No. 9070 of 2021) seeking an interim injunction. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property, arguing that such actions would create third-party interests and lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
Held
The Court held that it is appropriate for the petitioner/appellant to seek the relief of temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the Appeal Suit. The Court reasoned that if the respondents were to encumber or alienate the suit property, it would create third-party interests and lead to a multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the petition for interim injunction was allowed. The operative direction was to grant the interim injunction as prayed for, restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property pending the disposal of the appeal suit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner/appellant is entitled to an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property pending the disposal of the appeal suit. Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The petitioner argued that if the respondents alienate or encumber the suit property during the pendency of the appeal, it would create third-party interests and lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, an interim injunction is necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent further complications. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state. The respondents mentioned in the petition are private parties.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Juri iction )
Tue ay, the Twenty Second day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA in AS(MD) No.269 of 2021 HASHIDHAHANI ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT Vs 1 MUBARRAK 2 RAHMATH NISHA 3 JAGUBAR ALI 4 ALEXANDER (SINCE THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 SET-EXPARTE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. HENCE NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 MAY BE DISPENSED WITH) ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering suit schedule property pending disposal of the above first appeal. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY GJf;Nfhl;il khtl;lk; & jhYfh GJf;Nfhl;il hpb & rg;b GJf;Nfhl;il lTz; efuhl;rp vy;iyf;Fs; gl;lJk; kd;dh; fy;Yhhp tpisahl;L ikjhdj;Jf;Fk; nry;yd; tifawh GQ;ir
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.