Shivalingaiah S/O Lingaiah vs Panchajanya Vidya Peetha Welfare 2007 (5) KarLJ 625 V. Jagannathan, J. “It is a well settled proposition of law that grant of an injunction is a matter of judicial discretion and the party seeking such relief will have to establish (a) a prima facie case (b) balance of convenience in his favour and (c) he would suffer an irreparable injury, if his prayer for temporary injunction is disallowed. This is a sine qua non. Even if a case is made out to bring the case within the ambit of a "triable case", the relief of injunction has to be granted. Therefore, we will have to see as to whether the appellant has made out a "Triable Case".” Sri L. Shivalingaiah S/O Lingaiah vs Panchajanya Vidya Peetha Welfare 2007 (5) KarLJ 625 V. Jagannathan, J. “I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case which can be bracketed within the expression of "triable case" and consequently, the learned trial Judge was in error in making the observations that the appellant did not venture to mention in his plaint that he was not given a copy of the enquiry report. As the appellant has made out a case to be gone into in detail and as the question raised by the appellant at the stage indicate the existence of a prima facie case in his favour, the refusal on the part of the trial Court to grant an order of temporary injunction as prayed for, cannot be sustained in law and the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are contrary to law and therefore, not free from unreasonableness or arbitrariness.”

WHEN PARTIES ARE SUING THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OUT OF OFFICE, PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 92 HAS NO RELEVANCE, IT IS NOT PUBLIC RIGHTS. Sri L. Shivalingaiah S/O Lingaiah vs Panchajanya Vidya Peetha Welfare 2007 (5) KarLJ 625 V. Jagannathan, J. “A suit under Section-92 is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a pubic trust of a religious or charitable character. ……… A suit whose primary object or purpose is to remedy the infringement of an individual right or to vindicate a private right does not fall under the section. It is not every suit claiming the reliefs specified in the Section that can be brought under the section but only the suits which, besides claiming any of the reliefs, are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights, and in deciding whether a suit falls within Section-92 the Court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit was brought. This is the reasons why trustees of public trust of a religious nature are precluded from suing under the section to vindicate their individual or personal rights. It is quite immaterial whether the trustees pray for declaration of their personal rights or deny the personal rights of one or more defendants. When the right to the office of a trustee is a asserted or denied and relief asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside Section-92.”

COURT HAS ENORMOUS POWERS UNDER SECTION 151 In Tanusree Basu v. Ishani Prasad Basu [(2008) 4 SCC 791] It is held that “It is now a wellsettled principle of law that Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) is not the sole repository of the power of the court to grant injunction. Section 151 of the Code confers power upon the court to grant injunction if the matter is not covered by Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Code. [See Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527 and India Household and Healthcare Ltd. v. LG Household and Healthcare Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 510] SUFFERENACE OF PLAINTIFF HAS TO BE SEEN In Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [(2001) 5 SCC 73]." While considering the question of granting an order of injunction one way or the other, evidently, the court, apart from finding out a prima facie case, would consider the question in regard to the balance of convenience of the parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered by the plaintiffs if the prayer for injunction is to be refused. The contention of the plaintiffs must be bona fide. The question sought to be tried must be a serious question and not only on a mere triable issue. [See Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others , (1990) 2 SCC 117, Dalpat Kumar and Another v. Prahlad Singh and Others (1992) 1 SCC 719, United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India and Others (1981) 2 SCC 766, Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Others v. Coca Cola Co. and Others (1995) 5 SCC 545, Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and Others v. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev and Others (1999) 5 SCC 222) WITHOLDING DOCUMENTS IS FRAUD It is kindly brought to the kind attention of Hon’ble court the observations of Supreme court in S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU V. JAGANNATH AND OTHERS, AIR (81) 1994 SUPREME COURT 853, wherein it is held as follows:- 'The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.' Observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji latif and Ors. (1968) 3 S.C.R.: Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withhold important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court

the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof. In Murugesam Pillai v. Manichavasaka Pandara, Lord Shaw observed as follows: A practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly, to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision. With regard to third parties, this may be right enough-they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit; but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in their Lordships' opinion an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition. Strong reliance is placed on the following observations of this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] in regard to grant of temporary injunction "Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated : "is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the ’balance of convenience’ lies." 2006 (5) SCC 282 -> The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff : (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of plaintiff’s rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of plaintiff’s rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of defendant’s rights or likely infringement of defendant’s rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff’s conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful