High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition challenging order whereby the application filed by the appellant as also by respondent no. 1 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC have been dismissed.
Brief Facts:
While issuing summons in the suit, on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court had noticed that an order has been placed upon respondent no. 3 for supply of industrial oil and payment was to be paid through letter of credit after 180 days. Respondent no. 3 had approached the bank for encashment of letter of credit. The case of the plaintiff was that goods had not been supplied. As per the plaintiff, the documents attached by respondent no. 3 with the letter of credit, i.e., invoices and lorry receipts were forged. Keeping in view the said submissions on behalf of the plaintiff, the Court had granted interim injunction on encashment of letter of credit. Subject suit was filed by the respondent no. 2 seeking declaration, cancellation of documents and permanent injunction.
Appellant’s Contentions: Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since appellant has already made the payment of the letter of credit to respondent No. 3, respondent no. 3 may not be interested in defending the appeal.
HC’s Observations and Held:
After hearing both the sides Court stated the impugned order notes that an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC is permissible only if in the application seeking temporary injunction or in the affidavit supporting such application, a party has made false and misleading statement in respect to a material particular and injunction was granted without notice to the opposite party.
Court observed that second proviso to Order 39 Rule 4 CPC lays down that where an order of injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, said order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside except where such discharge, variations or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or unless the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party.
Court observed that since the application filed by the appellant does not satisfy the requirements of the second proviso to Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the orders dated 25.02.2013 and 13.08.2015 do not warrant any modification or vacation under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Court observed that the trial court has committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. HC dismissed the appeal.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Case Title: Bank of Baroda v. Union Bank of India & Ors.
Case Details: FAO 51/2021& CM APPL. 4514/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
