MANAS SHELTERS PVT. LTD Vs. VIVEK MADHAVLAL PITTIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this application filed on behalf of the defendant No.1A is as to whether events, that occurred subsequent to order dtd. 15/6/2015 granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, justify this Court exercising power under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) to vacate the injunction. The applicant has raised various grounds while praying for vacating the order of interim injunction, but the thrust of the arguments on behalf of the applicant / defendant No.1A is that, the plaintiff has failed to show continued readiness and willingness to perform its part of the development agreement. It is alleged that after obtaining the interim injunction from this Court, the plaintiff has done nothing, as a result of which, there is no activity towards development of the suit property and the defendant No.1A is stuck with the plaintiff in the very same situation in which the suit property was lying as on 15/6/2015, when the interim injunction was granted.

(2.) Defendant No.1A claims that even after obtaining the aforesaid interim injunction on the basis that the termination of the development agreement by the original defendant No.1 was prima facie unsustainable, as also on the basis that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part under the development agreement, not a single step was taken in furtherance of such alleged readiness and willingness. Reliance is placed on events that have occurred subsequent to 15/6/2015 with documents in support thereof, to claim that this Court ought to exercise power under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. to vacate the interim injunction.

(3.) The plaintiff has opposed the said contentions of defendant No.1A and it is alleged that the development work came to a standstill because of multifarious litigations and proceedings initiated by the defendant No.1A. It is alleged that the defendant No.1A was instrumental in the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) not entertaining applications filed on behalf of the plaintiff to take forward the development work. It was submitted that all the grounds raised in the present application are unsustainable, particularly because an earlier application for vacating the interim injunction met with failure.