Can Temporary Injunctions Be Granted in Specific Performance Suits Without Prima Facie Evidence of Possession or Irreparable Injury?

Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterates that temporary injunctions in suits for specific performance cannot be granted simply based on assertions of earnest money without substantive prima facie evidence, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. Affirming existing Supreme Court precedent, this decision provides authoritative guidance for interim relief applications in property transactions within the jurisdiction.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reaffirms that the plaintiff must establish all three elements—prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience—for a temporary injunction; failure in even one is fatal.
• No injunction can be granted solely on the basis of disputed or unsubstantiated payment of earnest money, especially if possession is not established.
• Contradictory pleadings or statements regarding possession undermine a plaintiff’s case for interim relief.
• The doctrine of lis pendens sufficiently protects against third-party claims during litigation in property disputes; interim injunction is not automatic.
• Precedents must be carefully matched on facts; cited authorities that differ factually offer no assistance to applicants.
• Where the defendant undertakes not to alienate the property, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury prongs may not favour the plaintiff.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. The Court examined the requirements for granting temporary injunctions, namely, existence of a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, as stipulated in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi and reaffirmed in other cited cases.
2. Analyzed inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s pleadings, particularly the lack of demonstrable possession and contradictory statements by counsel regarding the plaintiff’s possession of the property.
3. Considered forensic evidence on the genuineness of the signature; noted conflicting reports and lack of prima facie evidence supporting the plaintiff’s version.
4. The Trial Court’s adoption of passages from Supreme Court judgments without factual application or proper analysis was criticized.
5. The First Appellate Court’s detailed evaluation of facts and application of law was approved; it properly identified the absence of all three requisite elements for injunction.
6. The Court clarified that lis pendens (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act) already provides protection against third-party interests, rendering further injunction unnecessary without sufficient proof of the triad.
7. Distinguished present facts from decisions such as Nirbhay Singh Brar and others, signalling that injunctive authority depends on the specific factual matrix.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner:

• Contended that the First Appellate Court did not point out perversity but reversed the Trial Court’s order unjustifiably.
• Alleged that the defendant was attempting to sell the suit property, citing photographic evidence.
• Argued that payment of ₹50,000/- by cheque constituted a prima facie case for injunction.
• Relied on SC and High Court judgments to support grant of interim relief.

Respondent:

• Denied execution of the agreement to sell and authenticity of the signatures.
• Contended no receipt of cheque, and that the payment was unilaterally deposited by the petitioner.
• Pointed to contradictions in the petitioner’s claim regarding possession.
• Produced a forensic report indicating signatures were forged.
• Stated there was no plan to alienate the suit property.

Factual Background

The dispute concerned a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based on an alleged agreement to sell agricultural land, with a claimed earnest money payment by the plaintiff. The defendant was initially unserved and proceeded ex parte, during which interim injunction was granted. After learning of the suit, following an allegation of attempted forcible possession, the defendant moved to set aside the ex parte proceedings. Respondent’s written statement denied the agreement, authenticity of payment, and challenged the evidence. Competing forensic reports on the signatures were placed on record. The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s injunction order for lack of prima facie evidence and contradictions in the plaintiff’s position, prompting this revision petition.

Statutory Analysis

• The Court interpreted the requirements for interim injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure (Order 39 Rules 1 and 2), referencing established precedent.
• Applied Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, emphasizing lis pendens as automatic protection against transfers during litigation, reducing the need for administrative injunction unless requisite proof is shown.
• No novel or expansive reading of statutes; followed conventional interpretations as per authoritative precedents.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

No new procedural precedents, guidelines, or directions were issued in this judgment.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed