The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh 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

 

Similar News