ARUNA Vs. VIKAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order rejecting the prayer for injunction by the appellate court. The plaintiff/petitioner who had filed a suit for a declaration that the sale made by her mother-in-law in respect of the property inherited by her through her husband was bad, was dismissed by the trial court, after trial. Earlier during the pendency of the suit, she had sought interim injunction which was refused. She had preferred an appeal against that order. Initially an order of status quo was passed by the appellate court, but ultimately the appeal was dismissed. There had been, therefore, no injunction order in favour of the petitioner, except during the initial stage when the appellate court had granted status quo order. The plaintiff's case hinged on some transaction of agreement between her husband and brother-in-law, in terms of which a rice mill and machinery were claimed to have been allotted to her husband. This contention was denied by the contesting defendants and the trial court observed that the agreement propounded by the plaintiff could not be proved since the property said to be allotted to her brother-in-law Jai Bhagwan was actually dealt with by sale through her power of attorney. The validity or otherwise of the sale deed of these transaction and title of the plaintiff, as sought, would be considered by the appellate court, but I am convinced that when there is a judgment of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit on certain admissions and documents filed that discredited the plea of exclusive allotment of suit property to her, she had no right to seek for interim relief in appellate court.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner passionately contended that his prayer is innocuous and that he was only interested in seeing that the machineries are not totally dismantled and removed from the place. The contention of the respondents is that after they had purchased the property, in place of rice mill, new shops have been built. It is not as if the property has been razed to ground and the total value of the property has fallen much below what the plaintiff was seeking. Interim prayer against alienation cannot be a matter of course and the right of alienation being a necessary incident of ownership, it cannot be lightly interfered with, unless the plaintiff is able to show a very strong prima facie case. I would not find such benefit obtaining to the petitioner/plaintiff specially when her suit was dismissed. The balance of convenience is also not in favour of the plaintiff. If the machineries are got alienated, still the plaintiff will not lose at all. There are still valuable building upon the property which can obtain sufficient compensation for the loss that may be put to her by sale or transfer of the machinery. Denial of injunction by the appellate court, in the circumstances, was justified and I find no reason to interfere with the same. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that there can be direction for the early disposal of the appeal. The petitioner is at liberty to apply for the expeditious disposal before the appellate court and if the court can make such time depending upon its pendency status and the time that it can spare, it would be best addressed by the appellate court itself and not by any diktat of this Court.