MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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