http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKETCOMMITTEE-GONDAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI GRIDHARBHAI RAMJIBHAICHHANIYARA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Application for intervention is allowed.      We have heard the learned counsel for both sides.      This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the  High Court  of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, made on January 15, 1997 in Civil Application No.9563/96.      A few admitted facts are sufficient for the disposal of this case.  The Market  Committee was  constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produced Markets Act, 1963 (for  short,  the  Act).  Under  the  Act,  the  Market Committee is  under the  statutory obligation to declare the notified market  area for  the  purpose  of  regulating  the purchase and  sale of  notified agricultural  produce within the notified market and to establish it. As a facet thereof, advertisement has  been published  inviting offers  from the interested persons for allotment of shops in new market yard vide notification dated November 23, 1991. The existing shop holder  were  informed  that  if  they  were  interested  to surrender the  shops in the existing market area, they would be granted  shop in  the new  market yard.  In lieu thereof, they are  required to  pay the  value of the shop equal to 7 year’ capitalised  rent. They  are designated  as "shop  for shop category".  For others it is designated as A type shops and B  type shops.  For A  type shops  they have tentatively fixed the  price at  Rs. 2.55  Lakhs and  for B  type  shops Rs.2.33 lakhs  been fixed.  After the advertisement so made, respondents No.1  and 2  filed suit for perpetual injunction in a  representative capacity  under Order  I, Rule  8,  CPC restraining the  Market Committee  from making  allotment of the shop  and ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule, CPC was  sought for  and was  granted by the trial Court. On appeal, it  was confirmed by High Court with a further rider with which  we deal  at a  later stage.  Thus this appeal by special leave.      The primary  question that  arises for consideration is whether the respondents have any right to be enforced by way of injunction  ? Part  III of  the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals in that behalf by way of preventive relief. Section 36 postulates that  "[P]reventive  relief  is  granted  at  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

discretion  of   the  court   by  injunction,  temporary  or perpetual." Temporary  or perpetual injunction are regulated by Section 37, which read as under :      "37.   Temporary    and   perpetual      injunctions.   -    (1)   Temporary      injunctions   are   such   are   to      continue until a specified time, or      until  the  further  order  of  the      court, and  they may  be granted at      any  stage   of  a  suit,  and  are      regulated  by  the  Code  of  Civil      Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)      (2) A perpetual injunction can only      be granted  by the  decree made  at      the hearing  and upon the merits of      the suit;  the defendant is thereby      perpetually   enjoined   from   the      assertion of  a right,  or from the      commission of  an act,  which would      be contrary  to the  right  of  the      plaintiff."      It is  seen that the respondents do not have at present any concluded  right to  seek for  enforcement  against  the Market Committee.  At best,  they have  got a right to apply for and  seek allotment in respect of those who are governed by the  second category, namely, A type and B type shops. We are not  concerned in  this case  with the  first  category, viz., shop  for shop because they are not seeking any relief by way  of perpetual or temporary injunction in this behalf. Since the  respondents are not having any concluded right as at present,  the Court  has not applied its mind to consider what would  be the  right which  is claimed to be infringed. The High  Court has  further proceeded  on the  premise that they have  a right, without applying its mind; it has stated that the  right   is sought  to be  regulated by injunction, without looking  into the  above provisions  of the Act. The trial Court has stated as under:      "1. Temporary injunction against he      defendant  no.1   their   servants,      agents  etc.   is  hereby   granted      restraining    them    in    making      allotment of any shop on premium of      Rs.  2,55,000/-  and  Rs.2,30,000/-      respectively for  ‘A’ type  and ‘B’      type shops  are concerned  (this is      based on   XXVIII  (2) G.L.R. 214).      This  interim injunction relates so      far as  pltfs.  and  other  meaning      thereby 81  persons and  subject to      decision  of  High  Court  for  146      persons on  record  are  concerned,      and it  shall not  effect to  those      allottees whom  shops are  allotted      by draw  previously held if any and      to those  whom  allotment  is  made      otherwise than draw system.      2. Defendant  no.1 to  frame  legal      and reasonable  conditions for  the      allotment of  shop  and  thereafter      defendant no.1  is allowed  to make      allotment of  shops  in  ONE  group      consisting   of    plaintiffs   and      persons  on  record  and  other  in      order to  prevent fragmentation  of      group.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    3.  Subject   to  the  decision  of      Hon’ble High Court in regard to 146      persons    in     Civil    Revision      Application No.1646/96,  deft. no.1      shall protect right.      4. In order to avail opportunity to      obtain shops  in new market yard to      plaintiff and  other, and  in other      to avail  defendant no.1  to  repay      loan  and  interest  and  to  avail      financial  sources   to   defendant      no.1, temporary  injuction till the      final  disposal   of  the  suit  is      further granted as under:-      (i) All plaintiff and other persons      on record  have  raised  contention      and dispute  about ‘A’ type and ‘B’      type  shops  in  new  market  yard.      Therefore,  subject  to  the  final      determination of price of such each      type of  shop. Plaintiff and others      on record  subject to  decision  of      necessary party  by High  Court are      afforded   an    opportunity    and      directed to participate in draw for      the allotment of each type of shop.      (ii) For  this plaintiff  and other      persons  on   record  who  want  to      participate  in  allotment  of  the      shop shall make payment of price at      this  stage   nor  more   than  Rs.      1,17,000/- for ‘A’ type of shop and      Rs.  1,06,200/-  for  ‘B’  type  of      shop; for this defendant no.1 shall      afford facility  of installment  as      availed to other allottees.      (iii) Plaintiffs  and other persons      to take  note that above payment of      Rs. 1,17,000/-  and Rs.  1,06,200/-      is    subject    to    the    final      determination  of  the  price  that      would be decided by the Court after      recording  evidence  and  in  final      judgment of the suit."      The High Court has stated in the order as if there is a concluded right  between the  parties. Order  XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC  postulates  that  "in  any  suit  for  restraining  the defendant from  committing a  breach of  contract  or  their 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 injuction 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." As  pointed  out earlier, since  the right  of the  respondents is  still  in embryo even Order XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC is inapplicable and the enforcement thereof  is also unthinkable. The High Court has further enlarged  the scope of the relief which was not even sought for in trial. The High Court observed as under:      "Heard   the    learned   Advocates      appearing   for    the   respective      parties at  length for  the purpose      of interim  relief. Considering the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    dispute  involved   in   the   case      regarding the premium of A-Type and      B-Type  shops/godowns,   which  are      being    constructed     by     the      applicants, the balance is required      to be struck by way of granting ad-      interim relief.  According  to  the      applicants Rs.  2,55,000/-  for  A-      Type shop/godown and Rs. 2,30,000/-      for B-Type  shop/godown is the just      and  proper   price.  However,  the      learned trial  judge has  fixed the      price at  Rs. 1,17,000/- for A-Type      and Rs.  1,06,200/- for  B-Type  on      the basis  of the material produced      before him,  (which is  the subject      matter  of   consideration  in  the      Appeal  From  order)  and,  in  any      case, the  same cannot  be  faulted      with   at   this   stage   as   the      correctness   thereof    would   be      decided in  the appeal and, if that      it  stayed,   it  would  amount  to      allowing the  appeal at this stage.      Considering  the   fact  that   the      applicants  have  already  allotted      250 shops-cum-godowns  prior to the      passing of  the impugned  order, as      can  be  seen  from  the  affidavit      filed in  this Civil Application by      the applications,  coupled with the      fact that  the prices  at the  with      the fact that the price at the rate      of Rs.  2,55,000/- for  A-Type  and      Rs. 2,30,000/- for B-Type have been      fixed, and  as  the  learned  trial      Judge has  directed the  suit to be      disposed  of   before  March,  1997      wherein  the  exact  price  of  the      shops-cum-godowns      will      be      determined, it  will be  just,  fit      and expedient  that  the  following      ad-interim order  is passed to meet      with the ends of justice.      1.  Till   the  hearing  and  final      disposal   of    the   suit,    the      applicants will  collect the amount      at the  rate of  Rs. 1,17,000/- for      A-Type and  Rs. 1,06,000/-  for  B-      Type   shop-cum-godown   from   the      allottees   and   the   respondent-      plaintiff before  making  allotment      of any shop-godown to them      2. The  allottees as  well  as  the      respondent-plaintiff will  make the      payment, as  stated above,  at  the      time of  handing over possession of      the shop/godown to them.      3.  The   applicant,  as   far   as      possible, will  accommodate all the      respondent-plaintiff, provided they      agree and pay Rs. 1,17,000/- for A-      Type and  Rs. 1,06,000/- for B-Type      shop-godown for the time being, and      will not allot any shop/down to any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

    other person,  over and  above  250      allottees.      4. Since  this being  an ad-interim      order, it  is made clear to all the      allottees,      including       the      respondent-plaintiff,   that   they      will have  to abide by the decision      in the suit. In other words, if the      trial court  ultimately decides  in      favour of  the applicants regarding      the fixation  of the  prices of the      shop/godown,  in  that  event,  the      allottees   as    well    as    the      respondent-plaintiff will  have  to      pay  additional   amount  forthwith      failing which  they will  be unable      to be evicted."      Thus, we  Ho that the High Court has committed not only manifest error  of law,  but crossed the limitation of Order 43 Rule 1 in granting the relief.      This appeal  is accordingly  allowed. the  order of the court below  stand set  aside. However,  the trial  Court is directed  to   dispose  of  the  suit  as  expeditiously  as possible.  It  is  open  to  the  appellants  to  apply  for consideration of  allotment of  the shops,  if they have not already applied for. No costs.