RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI versus HARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS

RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI versus HARISH AMBALAL CHOKSI & OTHERS

The High Court erred in overstepping its appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 CPC by substituting its view for that of the trial court without identifying perversity, capriciousness, arbitrariness or mala fides in the trial court's exercise of discretion; Rule 1 of Order 39 CPC can justify injunctions restraining pendente lite transfers notwithstanding Section 52 T.P. Act in fit cases; therefore the High Court's order setting aside the trial court's interim injunction was set aside and status quo over the suit property was directed to be maintained.

Parties
Appellant: Ramakant Ambalal Choksi; Respondents: Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Order (judgment of Supreme Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court set aside
Legal Topics
Order 43 CPC, Order 39 CPC, Temporary/interim Injunction, Lis Pendens (section 52 T.p. Act), Scope of Appellate Review, Perversity as Ground for Interference
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Civil Procedure Appeals Property Law Interlocutory Reliefs Order 43 CPC Order 39 CPC Temporary/interim Injunction +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramakant Ambalal Choksi

Appellant

Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Order (judgment of Supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal and vacating the trial court's interim injunction order
  2. 2 Scope of appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 CPC in appeals against interlocutory orders granting or refusing interim injunctions
  3. 3 Whether an injunction restraining pendente lite transfers is maintainable notwithstanding Section 52 T.P. Act

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in overstepping its appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 CPC by substituting its view for that of the trial court without identifying perversity, capriciousness, arbitrariness or mala fides in the trial court's exercise of discretion; Rule 1 of Order 39 CPC can justify injunctions restraining pendente lite transfers notwithstanding Section 52 T.P. Act in fit cases; therefore the High Court's order setting aside the trial court's interim injunction was set aside and status quo over the suit property was directed to be maintained.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court set aside

Orders

  • Impugned order passed by the High Court dated 08.12.2022 is set aside.
  • Respondents shall maintain status quo as regards the suit property as on date and shall not create any further encumbrances over the same in any manner.