Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

No Right to Appeal Without Exhausting Remedies: Allahabad High Court on Property Dispute Injunction

02 September 2024 3:46 PM

By: sayum


The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the first appeal from order filed by Ashok Kumar Katiyar challenging the temporary injunction granted in favor of Charan Jeet Singh and others by the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar. The judgment, delivered by Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit, emphasizes the availability of statutory remedies for setting aside ex-parte orders under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, and the necessity of urgent interim relief as a condition for bypassing pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The case revolves around a property dispute concerning a petrol pump and adjoining land situated at Arazi Nos. 594, 595, and 596 in Barsaitpur, Kanpur Nagar. Ashok Kumar Katiyar, the defendant-appellant, sold the property to the plaintiff, Charan Jeet Singh, through a registered sale deed on February 24, 2020. Despite the sale and transfer of possession, Katiyar failed to complete formalities with Hindustan Petroleum for the transfer of the petrol pump’s operation rights, demanding an additional Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.

The Court noted that the plaintiff had purchased the property and was in possession, operating the petrol pump, thus establishing a prima-facie case for the plaintiffs.

Addressing the issue of pre-institution mediation, the Court clarified that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act mandates mediation unless urgent interim relief is required. Since the plaintiff sought urgent relief to prevent interference with the petrol pump’s operation, the provision was not applicable.

The Court emphasized that the defendant-appellant had a statutory remedy to file an application for vacating or recalling the ex-parte injunction under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. The appeal was dismissed as this remedy had not been exhausted.

The judgment elaborated on the conditions under which pre-litigation mediation is mandatory and the avenues available for challenging ex-parte injunctions. The Court underscored that when immediate relief is necessary, mediation can be bypassed, aligning with the principles set forth in M/s. Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited.

Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit remarked, “Since the interim injunction was granted by the learned trial court is ex-parte, the defendant-appellant has a remedy to file an application for vacating/recalling of the ex-parte injunction order under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. The present appeal on behalf of defendant-appellant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.”

Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of the appeal underscores the judiciary’s commitment to procedural rigor and the proper use of statutory remedies in civil litigation. By affirming the lower court’s interim order, the judgment reinforces the legal framework governing property disputes and interim reliefs, ensuring that parties exhaust all available remedies before seeking appellate intervention.

Date of Decision: August 1, 2024

Ashok Kumar Katiyar vs. Charan Jeet Singh and Others

 

Latest Legal News