Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 927 - SC - Indian LawsInterim Relief under Specific Relief Act - Execution of Power of Attorney - The plaintiffs claim that they along with deceased were residing in Suit flat and they were also in occupation of an suit office from where the first plaintiff was carrying on her profession of advocate and solicitors .The suit flat was gifted in favor of the first plaintiff whereas a general power of attorney was executed in favor of the first plaintiff. Both the properties were self-acquired properties of deceased. Whether Interim relief for Possession against Power of Attorney can be provided to Plaintiffs - HELD THAT:- there were inconsistencies and improbabilities in the case of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the interim relief of direction to be put back in possession, as claimed by the plaintiffs, was declined. The version of the plaintiffs that the visiting card showing her office at Ashoka Centre was a forged document and also the claim that the plaintiff had used the said premises temporarily as the suit office was under renovation was accepted by the learned Appellate Court as sufficient explanation to counter the stand taken by the defendants. On the aforesaid basis the order of the learned Trial Judge was found fit for reversal and refusal of interim relief to the plaintiffs was held to be unjustified. Accordingly, interim relief(s) was granted in the appeal. The interim relief granted to the plaintiffs by the Appellate Bench of the High Court in the present case is a mandatory direction to handover possession to the plaintiffs. Grant of mandatory interim relief requires the highest degree of satisfaction of the Court; much higher than a case involving grant of prohibitory injunction. Considering all the relevant facts, We find that the learned Appellate Bench of the High Court was not correct in interfering with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge we wish to make it clear that our aforesaid conclusion is not an expression of our opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties. Our disagreement with the view of the Division Bench is purely on the ground that the manner of exercise of the appellate power is not consistent with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Wander Ltd. [1990 (4) TMI 280 - SUPREME COURT]. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court and while restoring the order dated 13.04.2012 of the learned Trial Judge we request the learned Trial Judge, or such other court to which the case may, in the mean time, have been transferred to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as its calendar would permit with the expectation that the same will be possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of the above.
|