In CR-80-2019(O&M) -PUNJ HC- For grant of permanent injunction, person approaching Court must come with clean hands disclosing all material facts; Such relief is not to be granted when he/she tries to conceal any material fact: P&H HC
Justice H.S. Madaan [15-12-2022]

Read Order: Narender v. Sub-Divisional Officer and Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, December 19, 2022:  The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that ad-interim injunction dealt with by Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is a discretionary equitable relief, which is to be granted by the Court keeping in view all the facts and circumstances including the conduct of the parties, if the necessary ingredients for grant thereof are fulfilled i.e. the plaintiff having a good prima facie case, balance of convenience being in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff suffering irreparable loss and injury in case of denial of ad interim injunction with all those ingredients existing conjunctively. 

“For laying a basis for grant of permanent injunction, a person approaching the Court must do so with clean hands disclosing all the material facts and if he or she tries to conceal any material fact from the Court, then such relief is not to be granted. Clause (i) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act provides that an injunction cannot be granted when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the Court”, the Bench of Justice H.S. Madaan held.

Essentially, the facts are that the plaintiff-Narender applied for changing the electricity connection from his father’s name to that of his own and his brother’s. The application had a copy of jamabandi for the year 2013-14 (which pertained to land Khewat No.1762/1626, khatoni No.2191, rect. no.195, killa no.18 and 19 within revenue estate of village Pai Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal). Another document attached, pertained to killa no.18 of rect. no.195 was also verified by the patwari.

The jamabandi reflected that the tubewell connection was in killa no.18, which was owned by the plaintiff and his brother and based on their affidavits, the tubewell connection was transferred in the plaintiff’s name, however, Raghuvinder, another brother of the plaintiff submitted an application in the office of Executive Engineer Operational Division, UHBVNL, Pundri stating that the connection to the tubewell was in his fields but it was wrongly transferred in the plaintiff’s name. He requested for spot verification. 

The officers of electricity department inquired into the matter and it was found that tubewell connection was being run in killa no.13/8/1 of khasra no.195 and as per report of Halqa Patwari, no tubewell connection was existing in killa no.18 of rect. no.195. 

The electricity department sought explanation from the plaintiff by issuing notices, but the plaintiff’s reply was not found to be satisfactory. 

As per the plaintiff’s case, in spite of submitting the necessary documents, the defendants threatened to cancel the transfer of said connection in his name as also to disconnect the connection forcibly and illegally. The plaintiff thus, filed a suit along with an application for the grant of ad-interim injunction.

The Trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the connection till the disposal of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was partly allowed as the order in question was modified to the extent that defendants were restrained from recovering the whole of the penalty amount till final disposal of the case. However, the plaintiff felt dissatisfied with the order and approached the High Court by way of filing the present revision petition.

After hearing the parties, the Court opined that ad interim injunction dealt with by Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is a discretionary equitable relief, which is to be granted by the Court keeping in view all the facts and circumstances including the conduct of the parties, if the necessary ingredients for grant thereof are fulfilled, to say the plaintiff having a good prima facie case, balance of convenience being in favour of the plaintiff and plaintiff suffering irreparable loss and injury in case of denial of ad interim injunction with all those ingredients existing conjunctively. 

“For laying basis for grant of permanent injunction, a person approaching the Court must do so with clean hands disclosing all the material facts and if he or she tries to conceal any material fact from the Court, then such relief is not to be granted”, the Court observed while also adding that Clause (i) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act provides that an injunction cannot be granted when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the Court. 

In light of the above, the Bench opined that the petitioner/plaintiff was certainly not entitled to grant ad-interim injunction. Also, the Bench observed that the trial Court without due application of mind and keeping in view the relevant legal position disposed of the application directing the parties to maintain status quo over the connection till disposal of the suit. “Such order goes to show that the trial Court lacked clarity of vision in the matter and was unable to reach a clear conclusion under the circumstances of the case”, the Court held. 

Also, regarding the order of the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, the Bench observed that the order of the Court was a result of a very casual approach without any attempt to consider the matter in a proper perspective after trying to understand the factual and legal position properly. 

Reflecting on the conduct of the plaintiff, the Court observed,

“Such conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff is to be viewed with all seriousness and not lightly. Granting a discretionary equitable relief to a litigant who indulges in unfair practices of concealing material facts adopting dubious means and whose conduct is otherwise shoddy is most uncalled for and that would rather result in failure of justice.”

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.