High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Section 100 of the CPC, assails an order dated 26th September, 2019, passed by the learned ADJ whereby the learned ADJ has reversed an order dated 20th July, 2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge.
Brief Facts:
The plaint, from which these proceedings emanate, was preferred by the respondents against the appellants, seeking mandatory injunction, directing the appellants to remove malba, garbage etc., which they were alleged to have thrown in open land adjacent to the respondents’ premises and for permanently restraining the appellants from throwing any such malwa, garbage etc. at the said land. It was specifically alleged that consequent to certain disputes having arisen between the appellants and the respondents, whereby the appellants were restrained, as a result of which the appellants were allegedly thwarted in their attempts to raise construction on the open land, they started depositing garbage therein. The plaint also asserts that the respondents had, in this context, addressed a written complaint to the Police Station but that the nuisance continued. The learned Civil Judge, dismissed the suit as not being maintainable in view of Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which proscribes grant of injunction “when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter”. On the ground that the respondents have no personal interest in the matter, the learned Civil Judge rejected the suit for want of existence of a valid cause of action, exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents had no personal interest over the land, on which the malba/garbage etc. was allegedly being deposited as they claimed no right, title or possession in respect thereof. He submitted that, in such circumstances, Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act operates as an absolute proscription against grant of injunction.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act proscribes grant of injunction “when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter”. The word “matter” is of wide and compendious scope, and would include everything, which is subject matter of the suit and grievance expressed therein.
HC relied upon the case of Vishwanathan v. Abdul Wajid where it was held that “the expression “matter” is not equivalent to “subject matter”; it means the right claimed.” The right claimed by the respondents in their suit was, clearly, avoidance of the nuisance that had resulted as a consequence of the alleged dumping, by the appellants, of malba and garbage on the land adjoining their premises.
HC stated that if the plaintiff is a complete stranger, having no personal interest with respect to the grievance expressed in the suit, being “the matter” in the suit, no doubt, Section 41(j) operates as a proscription against grant of injunction. The words “the matter” cannot, however, in my view, be conflict with the property forming subject matter of the suit. The grievance of the plaintiffs, as voiced in the suit, and dehors its merits, was that the respondents had committed an actionable tort which, if proved, could even amount to nuisance.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “Inasmuch as the plaintiffs were also claiming that they were enjoying the land in which the malwa/garbage etc. was being allegedly deposited, dehors the issue of the respondents’ right to possession over the land, it cannot be said that they had no personal interest in respect of the matter, i.e., the grievance ventilated in the suit. Any other interpretation would be unduly narrowed and not justified by the words used in Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act. The respondents cannot be said to have had no personal interest in the matter, so as to justify summary dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC read with Section 41(j)of the Specific Relief Act.”
Case Title: Sanjay Chugh & Anr v. Ram Kishan & Ors
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Citation: RSA 233/2019 and CM Appl. 50920/2019 (stay)
Decided on: 30th March 2022
Read Judgment @latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
