Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

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