Plaintiff Can’t Seek Specific Performance And Injunction In One Suit: SC [Read Judgment]

The reason for motion to assert a reduction of everlasting injunction and the reason for motion to assert a reduction of particular efficiency of settlement are unbiased and one can not come with the opposite and vice versa, the court docket mentioned.

The Supreme Court in Sucha Singh Sodhi v Baldev Raj Walia, has held plaintiff may now not declare the relaxation of particular efficiency of settlement at the side of the relaxation of an everlasting injunction in a go well with.

In this example, first go well with in search of an injunction in opposition to the defendant was once withdrawn with go away of the court docket. Later, when a go well with for particular efficiency was once filed, the defendant objected to it, invoking Order 2 Rule 2, which states that the relaxation of particular efficiency should have claimed at the side of the relaxation of injunction within the previous go well with, which was once withdrawn. The Trial Court and the High Court discovered favour with the defendant in this competition.

On attraction filed by way of the plaintiff, a bench of Justice RK Agrawal and Justice AM Sapre, discovered that this type of reduction of particular efficiency may now not have claimed at the side of the go well with for injunction, for the next causes:

  • The reason for motion to assert a reduction of everlasting injunction and the reason for motion to assert a reduction of particular efficiency of settlement are unbiased and one can not come with the opposite and vice versa. In different phrases, a plaintiff can not declare a reduction of particular efficiency of settlement in opposition to the defendant on a reason for motion on which he has claimed a reduction of everlasting injunction.
  • The reason for motion to assert brief/everlasting injunction in opposition to the defendants from interfering in plaintiff’s ownership over the go well with premises accrues when defendant No.1 threatens the plaintiff to dispossess him from the go well with premises or another way purpose harm to the plaintiff in the case of the go well with premises. It is ruled by way of Order 39 Rule 1 (c) of the Code which offers with the grant of an injunction. The limitation to record such go well with is 3 years from the date of obstruction brought about by way of the defendant to the plaintiff (See – Part VII Articles 85, 86 and 87 of the Limitation Act). On the opposite hand, the reason for motion to record a go well with for claiming particular efficiency of settlement arises from the date mounted for the efficiency or when no such date is mounted when the plaintiff has spotted that efficiency is refused by way of the defendant. The limitation to record such go well with is 3 years from such date (See – Part II Article 54 of the Limitation Act).
  • When each the reliefs/claims specifically, (1) Permanent Injunction and (2) Specific Performance of Agreement don’t seem to be similar, when the reasons of motion to sue are separate, when the factual elements important to represent the respective reasons of motion for each the reliefs/claims are other and finally, when each the reliefs/claims are ruled by way of separate articles of the Limitation Act, then, in our opinion, it isn’t conceivable to assert each the reliefs in combination on one reason for motion.

Another factor raised prior to the apex court docket was once that, within the absence of any permission/liberty granted by way of the trial court docket to the plaintiff on the time of taking flight the former go well with filed for everlasting injunction, the plaintiff was once entitled to record the go well with for particular efficiency of settlement in opposition to the defendants in the case of the go well with belongings. The bench mentioned: “In our view, the Court was entitled to take into consideration the statement made by the original plaintiff (Sucha Singh) for withdrawing the suit and filing it afresh and his statement could be made a part of the order for granting permission to withdraw the civil suit and file a fresh suit.”

Read the Judgment Here

Updated: April 16, 2018 — 6:28 am
Mesothelioma Lawsuit Funding © 2016