Harish Chander Verma Vs. Kayastha Pathshala Trust & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 842 of 1988.
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1937 of 1988)
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1937 of 1988)
Petitioner: Harish Chander Verma
Respondent: Kayastha Pathshala Trust & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 842 of 1988.
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1937 of 1988)
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1937 of 1988)
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 10, 1988
Head Note:
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Appeal against the decree for permanent injunction – High Court permitted the defendant-respondent to raise construction subject to the condition that in the event of the decree being affirmed the construction shall be pulled down – Whether it is appropriate for the appellate court to allow it to be nullified before the appeal is disposed of – Held no.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. When the suit for permanent injunction was pending the question of interim injunction had come before the High Court and when the High Court had granted injunction at the instance of the present appellant the respondent moved this court by way of special leave pettion and the same was dismissed. The suit has now been deemed ad permanent injunction has bene ordered against the respondents. In appeal against the decree for permanent injunction the High Court by the impugned order has permitted the defendant-respondent herein to raise construction subject to the condition that in the event of the decree being affirmed the construction shall have to be pulled down.
2. Apart from the convenience the parties and equity arising in the facts of the case, a larger principle is involved in the matter. On the face of a decree for permanent injunction is it appropriate for the appellate court to allow it to be nullified before the appeal is disposed of. We are of the view that the answer has to be in the negative.
3. We accordingly allow the appeal, vacate the order of the High Court and direct status quo as existing today to continue during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of the receipt of this order.
1. Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. When the suit for permanent injunction was pending the question of interim injunction had come before the High Court and when the High Court had granted injunction at the instance of the present appellant the respondent moved this court by way of special leave pettion and the same was dismissed. The suit has now been deemed ad permanent injunction has bene ordered against the respondents. In appeal against the decree for permanent injunction the High Court by the impugned order has permitted the defendant-respondent herein to raise construction subject to the condition that in the event of the decree being affirmed the construction shall have to be pulled down.
2. Apart from the convenience the parties and equity arising in the facts of the case, a larger principle is involved in the matter. On the face of a decree for permanent injunction is it appropriate for the appellate court to allow it to be nullified before the appeal is disposed of. We are of the view that the answer has to be in the negative.
3. We accordingly allow the appeal, vacate the order of the High Court and direct status quo as existing today to continue during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal within six months from the date of the receipt of this order.
