MASTER BUILDERS Vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order dated 7th February 1991 passed on the application filed under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendant by means of an ad interim injunction from resisting and obstructing the entry of the plaintiff in property No. 16. Amrita Shergill Marg. New Delhi and also restraining the defendant from entering upon the same. The learned Judge granted the plaintiff's application and the defendants were directed to remove themselves from the property in question during the pendency of the suit and were further restrained from resisting or obstructing entry of the plaintiff of any of the officers or others all on behalf thereto. The learned Judge also gave some directions as to how the order passed on the application is to come into effect. The directions given by the learned Judge are as under ;-

(2.) The necessary facts stated by the learned Judge are as follows :-

(3.) Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge did not take into consideration as to whether there was a wrongful termination of the agreement by the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to any equitable relief in the form of injunction. The defendant applicant had completed the building and at that stage it was wrongful on the part of the plaintiff to terminate the agreement. The appellants had the right to remain in the property, and that licence could not be revoked or terminated by the plaintiff. The defendant has a large sum outstanding against the plaintiff, in respect of which a suit has already been filed by the defendant in the sum Rupees more than one crore. It is also urged on behalf of the defendants appellants that by allowing the application for grant of temporary injunction, the suit itself stood decreed. Entering into the plot in question was the relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit and that relief plaintiff has been granted on the application for grant of temporary injunction. It is also urged on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge did not properly consider the law laid down in Hounslow v Twickenham Garden Development Ltd., (1970)-3 All ER 326 (Ch.D) where the owner was refused injunction to restrain the contractor from entering the site and Hudson's Building Contracts, and Mayfield Holdings v. Moana Reef (1973)-l New Zealand Law Reports 309, were relied upon.