138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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