http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5807 of 2005

PETITIONER: Col. Anil Kak (Retd.)                   .                                

RESPONDENT: Municipal corporation, Indore & Ors.                                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/2005

BENCH: G.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  ( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11940 OF 2003) WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.11771 OF 2003

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

1.             These two petitions arise from the claim for an interim  injunction by the petitioner before us in a suit filed by him.  The suit was for  a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, the defendants in the  suit, from interfering with the possession of the suit land allegedly held by  the petitioner including the school buildings constructed thereon and not to  demolish or take any steps for removal of the constructions.   An interim  injunction along the same lines to enure during the suit was sought.   That  application was opposed.   Respondent No.3, in turn sought an injunction  restraining the petitioner \026 plaintiff from putting up any construction outside  an area of 16,000 Sq. ft.  The trial court granted an interim injunction in  favour of the petitioner but confined it to an area of 16,000 Sq. ft. and the  construction thereon and also restrained him from putting up any  construction outside it but included in the plaint schedule.   The petitioner  appealed against those orders and the Additional District Judge allowed the  appeals and  modifying the order of injunction granted by the trial court,  made the injunction operative in respect of the entire plaint schedule  property and the structures thereon.   The respondents originally filed a  revision invoking Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ’the  Code’) before the High Court challenging the order of the first appellate  court.   In view of a decision rendered by that High Court that no revision  under Section 115 of the Code could be entertained against an order of  injunction since the order was purely interlocutory in nature, the respondents  herein sought a conversion of their revision into a petition under Article 227  of the Constitution of India.   This prayer was allowed by the High Court  which decided to treat the proceedings as one under Article 227 of the  Constitution of India.   It is challenging that order that the petitioner before  us has filed Special Leave Petition(C) No.11771 of 2003.   Proceeding on  the merits thereafter, the High Court modified the order of the first appellate  court and restored the order of the trial court and thereby confined the  interim order of injunction to an area of 16,000 Sq. ft. and the structures  thereon.   Feeling aggrieved by this modification, the petitioner before us -  the plaintiff in the suit, has filed SLP(C) No.11940 of 2003.   Since both  matters arise from the same proceedings, they are taken up together for final  disposal. SLP(C) No.11771 of 2003

2.              All that the High Court has done is to treat the petition filed  before it under Section 115 of the Code as a proceeding initiated under  Article 227 of the Constitution of India.   The respondents had filed the  revision originally and during the pendency of that revision the High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

appears to have taken a view that an order in an appeal arising from a  proceeding under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, could not be  challenged under Section 115 of the Code since the order was in the nature  of an interlocutory order.   In such a situation, in our view, the High Court  rightly decided to permit the revision petitioners before it, to convert the  same as a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  After  all, the court could have done it on its own, even without a motion in that  behalf by the petitioner.  We see absolutely no ground to interfere with the  said order on the grounds raised in this special leave petition.   Hence, this  special leave petition is dismissed. SLP(C) No.11940 of 2003                 Leave granted. 3.              In this appeal, the appellant - plaintiff who had filed a suit, inter  alia, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from  interfering with his possession of the plaint schedule property and the  structures thereon allegedly put up by him, challenges the order of the High  Court by which that court set aside the order of the first appellate court and  restored the limited order of interim injunction granted by the trial court.    The trial court, after hearing both sides had confined the interim order of  injunction to an extent of 16,000 Sq. ft. and the structures thereon and had  declined relief to the plaintiff in respect of the rest of the plaint area, and the  constructions allegedly put up by him outside the 16,000 Sq. ft, which alone  was the subject matter of an admitted lease.  In appeal, the lower appellate  court modified the order passed by the trial court and made the injunction  operative in respect of the whole of the suit property including the disputed  portion and the structures in the entire property including the ones allegedly  put up in the disputed portion.   The High Court found that no prima facie  case was made out by the plaintiff- the appellant before us, for an injunction  in respect of the property outside the 16,000 Sq. ft. and the structures  thereon and the appellate court was not justified in modifying the order of  the trial court.   The High Court set aside the order of the appellate court and  restored the order of the trial court.   Thus, the High Court confined the order  of injunction to an area of 16,000 Sq. ft and the structures thereon.                  4.              This Court  by order dated 12.7.2003, stayed the operation of  the order of the High Court as also any action for demolition until the matter  was heard in this Court.   On 14.7.2003, while issuing notice on the petitions  for special leave to appeal, this Court also ordered that until further orders,  the order dated 12.7.2003 shall continue to remain in operation.   Thus, the  order passed by this Court on 12.7.2003 continues to be in operation,  meaning thereby that the proposed demolition of structures outside the area  of 16,000 Sq. ft. remains stayed.

5.              We find that in the schedule property including the disputed  portion, an educational institution is functioning.  It is seen that there are a  number of litigations between the parties, including a suit for specific  performance of an agreement to lease filed by the appellant against  Respondent No.3 before us apparently in respect of the area outside the  16,000 Sq. ft.  The suits are all pending.   Taking note of the salient fact \026  and no other fact \026 that an educational institution is being run in the property  in question including the disputed portion and taking note of the fact that  from 12.7.2003 the order of stay of demolition granted by this Court has  been in operation, we feel that it is not necessary or appropriate to go into  the merits of the disputes between the parties at this stage.  We feel that it  would be appropriate to continue the order of this Court dated 12.7.2003 and  to keep it operative till the disposal of the suit, with a direction to the trial  court to try and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably  within a period of six months from the production before it of a copy of this  order by either of the parties.  We have thought it fit not to go into the merits  of the controversy vehemently projected before us by counsel on either side,   only in our view, that the status quo should be maintained in view of the fact  that an educational institution is said to be functioning in the property.

6.              Learned counsel for Res.No.3 submitted that under the cover of  this order, the appellant is attempting to put up constructions in the disputed

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

property and it is just and necessary to prevent him from doing so.  We think  that this prayer deserves to be granted, especially, in the context of the fact  that we are trying to maintain the status quo until the suit is finally disposed  of.   We, therefore, restrain the appellant - the plaintiff in the suit, from  putting up any further construction and from altering or modifying any  existing construction until the disposal of the suit.   In other words, there will  not only be an injunction against the defendants for demolishing the  constructions in the entire plaint schedule  property including the disputed  portion, but there would also be an injunction restraining the appellant from  making any further construction and from altering or modifying any existing  construction in the plaint property including the disputed property.   We also  make it clear that the fact that we are permitting the structures in the  disputed portion of the property to continue to exist, will not confer any right  on the plaintiff, if he is not able to establish his case for relief in the suit.

7.              There is a further submission on behalf of Respondent No.3 that  the appellant has not paid the rent for the premises which was admittedly  leased out to him.   Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no arrears,  as claimed.  We do not think it necessary to decide this controversy.   But we  grant the appellant a time of one month from the date of this order to clear  all the rent in arrears (if any), either by tendering the same to Respondent  No.3 or depositing the same in the trial court.      

8.              We also clarify that if the suit is not disposed of within the time  fixed by us and the defendants have a case that the plaintiff was deliberately  delaying the disposal of the suit, the respondents before us would have the  liberty to move this Court for any appropriate modification of this order.

9.              This appeal is, thus, disposed of by maintaining the order of this  Court dated 12.7.2003 until the disposal of the suit and with an injunction  against the plaintiff as indicated above and the other directions as contained  hereinabove.  We once more clarify that we have not gone into or dealt with  any contention on merits and leave all questions open, to be decided by the  trial court and our order maintaining the order dated 12.7.2003, is only  because of the fact that an educational institution is located, and is  functioning in the suit property, including in the disputed portion.   The  parties are directed to bear their own costs.