NC: 2026:KHC:7264
HC-KAR
8. The plaintiff contends that he and the defendant are
distant relatives. They jointly purchased the A schedule
property; for the purchase and development, he had paid the
total amount of Rs.11,40,000/- to the defendant from time to
time. The Plaintiff further contends that in 2015, he and the
defendant entered into an agreement whereby the Defendant
agreed to give a shop located on the ground floor and a flat on
the first floor to him. Alleging that the defendant had failed to
keep up the promise, he approached the Court in 2023. The
plaintiff has filed an Interlocutory Application under Order
XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking
a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from
alienating, mortgaging, or creating any encumbrance over
plaint 'A' schedule property or any portion thereof, till the
disposal of the suit. The Trial Court rejected the application by
taking note of the prima facie case and the balance of
convenience. To be precise, the Trial Court, after evaluating
the prima facie evidence and the balance of convenience,
denied the application. I concur; the refusal was both just and
proper.
NC: 2026:KHC:7264
HC-KAR
The plaintiff instituted the present suit in 2023, seeking,
inter alia, the division of the plaint A schedule property along
with a building in terms of the agreement dated 09.02.2015.
Simultaneously, the plaintiff moves an application seeking
an order of temporary injunction to preserve the subject matter
of the suit during the pendency of the proceedings.
9. For an injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must
typically demonstrate a prima facie case, the balance of
convenience in his favour, and the likelihood of
suffering irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. An
eight-year delay makes it difficult to prove the urgency of
"irreparable injury". The plaintiff failed to exercise his right for
almost eight years, thereby unduly prejudicing the defendant.
The plaintiff, by keeping quiet for eight years, is barred by the
doctrine of laches from seeking an immediate injunction.
The inordinate and unreasonable delay has caused
circumstances to change significantly over time, and a party
seeking urgent, immediate equitable relief (such as an
injunction) must approach the court within a reasonable time.
NC: 2026:KHC:7264
HC-KAR
His long period of acquiescence invalidates his current claim for
immediate relief.
It is a well-settled principle of law that interim relief can
always be granted in aid of and as ancillary to the main relief
available to the party on final determination of his rights in a
suit or any other proceeding. Therefore, a Court undoubtedly
possesses the power to grant interim relief during the pendency
of the suit. Temporary injunctions are thus injunctions issued
during the pendency of proceedings.
The Trial Court rightly found that the plaintiff failed to
establish a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary
injunction, as the material on record did not demonstrate
sufficient grounds for immediate intervention, nor was the
balance of convenience established in the plaintiff's favour.
It is noted that the issue of limitation is a substantial
question requiring full consideration and cannot be conclusively
decided at the interlocutory stage. Nevertheless, the Court's
decision to deny the injunction was well-founded, as the
Plaintiff did not satisfy the foundational requirements for
NC: 2026:KHC:7264
HC-KAR
temporary relief, particularly failing to make out a prima
facie case that warranted such an equitable intervention.
The power to grant or refuse a temporary injunction rests
on the sound exercise of discretion by the Court, which must be
based on established principles, including a prima facie case,
balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The grant or
refusal of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial
discretion, and the Trial Court has exercised this discretion
judiciously and on sound legal principles, establishing a strong
prima facie case and balancing the conveniences; therefore, the
order cannot be set aside as it's not arbitrary or capricious. The
Trial Court arrived at a just conclusion, which warrants no
interference from this Court.
10. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
Because of the dismissal of the appeal, all pending
interlocutory applications are disposed of.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
