Ultimate magazine theme for WordPress.

Injunctions in dispute for possession of immovable property

Injunctions in dispute for possession of immovable property written by Surya Sunilkumar student of Ramaiah institute of legal studies

Pooja Mittal Vs Rakesh Kumar


The apex court in the disposition of Pooja Mittal Vs Rakesh Kumar case dated 14th July 2020, has set aside an order specified by the Punjab and Haryana High court while dismissing a revision petition. The dispute was regarding a suit property.

Facts of the case

The appellant, in this case, asked for an interim injunction against the construction of a building by the defendant which he claimed to be his. The Trial court set aside the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides a provision to grant a temporary injunction if the case comes under any of the sub-clauses of Rule 1 and also an injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach. Further, the trial court was of the opinion that because the appellant had no evidence regarding the purchase of the First floor over the aforesaid property, therefore the property is owned by the defendant. The appeal was disposed off by the first appellant court.


The Supreme Court made the following observation and pronounced the judgment:
• The High court while dismissing the revision application by Rakesh Kumar the respondent against the coinciding opinion taken by the Trial court and the Appellant court rejecting the interim relief application of the plaintiffs (herein the respondents), directed the parties to maintain the status quo with regards to the suit property.
• The SC was of the opinion that the HC did not consider the facts recorded by the Trial and first Appellant court which was in the favor of the respondents herein. The First Appellant stated that “ …In view of the above, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application, as at present no evidence with regard to purchase of the first floor over the suit property in dispute was produced by the appellant/plaintiff. In view of this, judgments referred by counsel for the appellant are not applicable at this stage…..”
• The judgment also upheld that the order passed by the HC regarding the petition which directed the parties to maintain suo moto was not valid as there was no prima facie case was made by the plaintiff for granting of the relief.
• It also stated that as the case is still pending between the parties, it is restricting itself from making any more observations regarding this case.
• It directed the Trial Court to speed up the hearing of the case and pass a judgment, preferably before March 2021.

Case analysis

The order passed by the Supreme Court rectifies the mistake of the High of Punjab and Haryana. The aforementioned court has failed to understand the facts of the case. In Para 9 of the judgment of the First Appellant court, proper facts of the case were discussed with regards to the suit property. It was inferred by the lower court that there was no prima facia case under the subject matter of revision.
The court made findings that the suit property was owned by the defendants and that the plaintiff produced no evidence with regard to purchasing the first floor over the suit property in dispute. The Supreme Court has thus held that the finding of the Trial and the first Appellant court is relevant to the case.


In this case, the court made it clear that the suo moto order should only be passed if the prima facie case is made out. It has also asked the court to fasten the proceeding so that justice is provided to the parties of the suit. The decree passed by the apex court didn’t make any finding in the appeal filed but it disposed off the revision petition.

Comments are closed.