Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

R. Sankarappan Vs. C.M. Ibrahim Managing Partner Express Construction Company and Another

R. Sankarappan vs C.M. Ibrahim Managing Partner Express Construction Company and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 07, 2012
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/953795

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
O.A.No.489 of 2012 in C.S.No.384 of 2012
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

R. Sankarappan

Advocate For the Petitioners: ---- For the Respondent: ----

Respondent

C.M. Ibrahim Managing Partner Express Construction Company and Another

Excerpt

.....no.1. however, no relief is claimed against the defendant no.1. nor there in the prayer for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. it is not disputed that the suit is only for recovery of money and not with respect to property. 3. order 39 rule 1 and 2 of cpc reads as under:- "cases in which temporary injunction may be granted where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors, [(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,] the court may be order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. 2. injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach (1) in any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. (2) the court may be order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff/applicants for grant an order of interim injunction restraining the first defendant his men, agents, staff, servants or any person or from demolishing the property.

2. The plaintiff/applicant has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.41,57,800/- (Rupees Forty one Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred only) as against the second defendant. Defendant No.1 has been impleaded as a party, in view of the intimation sent by the defendant No.2 to the plaintiff, that he has sold the property to the defendant No.1. However, no relief is claimed against the defendant No.1. Nor there in the prayer for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. It is not disputed that the suit is only for recovery of money and not with respect to property.

3. Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC reads as under:-

"Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted

Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-

(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or

(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors,

[(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,]

the Court may be order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach

(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.

(2) The Court may be order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit.

4. The reading of the provisions under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC clearly shows, that a temporary injunction can be ordered only with respect to any suit property or with regard to final relief as claimed.

5. Admittedly, though relief of injunction has been prayed for in a suit for recovery of the amount from the defendant No.1, but the suit is only for recovery of fee, and there is no relief against the property.

6. In a suit for recovery of money, the immovable property cannot be property in dispute to grant temporary injunction. The only provision with regard to secure the amounts in the suit for recovery is Order 38 Rule 5. On fulfilling the condition laid down in the said provision, property of the defendants can be attached to secure the amounts or defendant can be asked to furnish security. In this case the relief of damages is against defendant No.2, whereas property belongs to defendant No.1 against whom no relief is claimed. Therefore, this petition besides being not competent, also does not make out any prima facie case for grant of injunction. No merit. Dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial