The Supreme Court stated that just the possibility of another valid viewpoint should not be a reason to overturn a trial court’s decision to grant an interim injunction.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that just because another reasonable interpretation exists, it should not be the reason to overturn a Trial Court’s decision made under Order 39 of the CPC. The Court granted the Appellant’s appeal, reversing the Gujarat High Court’s decision that lifted an injunction on the sale or transfer of the disputed property. The Bench reinstated the Trial Court’s ruling to keep the current situation unchanged and instructed the Respondents not to add any new claims on the property while the case is ongoing. Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that although the appellate court’s perspective might also be valid, the mere existence of such a perspective should not lead to overturning the Trial Court’s decision unless there is evidence of bad faith, irrationality, or unfairness in that decision.
AOR Chirag M. Shroff represented the Appellant, while Advocate Adithya Koshi Roy represented the Respondents. The property in question was bought jointly by the parties in 1991 through registered sale deeds. A jewelry showroom was later set up on the property with everyone’s involvement, but it stopped operating in 2013. In 2019, the Appellant found out that one of the Respondents had used a power of attorney from 1995 to sell the property to his son, another Respondent, without informing the others. This sale was reportedly for Rs. 1.70 crore, much lower than the property’s market value of over Rs. 20 crore at that time. Upset by this sale, the Appellant filed a civil suit seeking a declaration, cancellation of the sale deed, and a permanent injunction.
The Trial Court issued a temporary order preventing the Respondent from handling the property. However, the Gujarat High Court overturned this decision, claiming the Appellant was using political pressure and causing harassment. The Appellant argued that the Trial Court’s decision was well-founded and that the Appellate Court should be cautious in replacing the Trial Court’s judgment unless it was proven to be unfair, irrational, or disregarding established legal principles regarding interim injunctions. The Supreme Court annulled the High Court’s decision to lift the Trial Court’s injunction, emphasizing that if the Appellate Court takes on issues meant for the Trial Court, it undermines the court system’s structure.
The Court stated that the Appellate Court’s role in reviewing an interim injunction is to assess the legitimacy of the Trial Court’s order based on established legal principles, as outlined in Order 43 of the CPC. The Appellate Court should not overstep its authority, the Court noted. It referenced its ruling in Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan (2013), which highlighted that if the Trial Court found significant doubts about the plaintiffs’ right to an interim injunction, the Appellate Court should not interfere unless the Trial Court’s decision was clearly wrong or unreasonable.
The Bench mentioned that Appellate Courts should avoid interfering with the discretionary decisions of Trial Courts unless those decisions are clearly unreasonable, random, or against established legal principles. As a result, the Court concluded, “Based on the above, this appeal is successful and is granted. The order from the High Court is overturned… The respondents must keep the current situation of the property unchanged and must not add any new claims on it.” Therefore, the Supreme Court approved the Appeal.
Cause Title: Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 913)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Chirag M. Shroff; Advocate Mahima C Shroff,
Respondents: Advocate Adithya Koshi Roy; AOR Nikhil Goel
