LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/ramakant-ambalal-choksi-vs-harish-ambalal-choksi-others-20241122/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
22 November 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 13001 of 2024
Result
Allowed
Bench
J.B. Pardiwala, R Mahadevan
Citation
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1343 : 2024 INSC 913
Acts & Sections
CPC TP Act
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1343 : 2024 INSC 913
Issue for consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the defendants-respondents holding that no case for grant of interim injunction was made out and thus, vacating the order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants.
Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 43, 39 – Appeals from Orders – Appellate jurisdiction u/Or.43 – Scope: Held: Appellate court in an appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction is only required to adjudicate the validity of such order applying the well settled principles governing the scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 – Appellate court should not assume unlimited jurisdiction and should guide its powers within the contours laid down in the Wander case – On facts, the High Court overstepped its appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 of the CPC and substituted its own view for the one taken by the trial court without giving any categorical finding as to why the order of the trial court could be said to suffer from any perversity, capriciousness, arbitrariness, malafides or having been passed in ignorance of the settled principles governing the grant of injunction under Order 39 – High Court ought to have limited itself to adjudicating the correctness of the order of the trial court on the settled principles of law and should not have taken into consideration any other extraneous matters, more particularly when the suit was pending for adjudication on merits before the trial court – Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside. [Paras 32, 39, 48]

Read the full headnote (2 more paragraphs)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39, Rule 1 – Grant of interim injunction restraining pendente lite transfers: Held: Doctrine of lis pendens in Section 52 takes care of all pendente lite transfers; but it may not always be good enough to take fullest care of the plaintiffs interest vis-a-vis such a transfer – Rule 1 of Order 39 provides for interim injunction restraining the alienation or sale of the suit property and, if the doctrine of lis pendens in Section 52 was regarded to have provided all the panacea against pendente lite transfers, the Legislature would not have provided in Rule 1 for interim injunction restraining the transfer of suit property – Rule 1 of Order 39 clearly demonstrates that notwithstanding the Rule of lis pendens in Section 52, there can be occasion for the grant of injunction restraining pendente lite transfers in a fit and proper case – On facts, with regard to the nature of dispute between the parties and the materials on record, the property should not change hands any further – Defendants to maintain status quo as regards the suit property as on date and shall not create any further encumbrances over the same in any manner – Any further transfer of the suit property pending the final disposal of the suit shall be subject to lis pendens under Section 52 irrespective of the fact whether such lis pendens has been duly registered by the plaintiffs with the competent authority or not. [Paras 45, 47, 49, 50]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39 – Temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders – Grant of temporary injunctions – Principles governing – Explained. [Paras 33, 34] Words and Phrases – “Perverse’ – Meaning, definition – Discussed. [Paras 35, 36, 37]

Keywords: Order 43 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 · Order 39 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 · Appellate jurisdiction · Scope of jurisdiction of appellate court under Order 43 · Interim injunction · Temporary injunctions · Appellate court · Appeal from an interlocutory order granting or declining to grant interim injunction · Interlocutory orders · Unlimited jurisdiction · Perverse · Perversity · Capriciousness · Arbitrariness · Malafides · Extraneous matters, Suit pending · Adjudication on merits

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dated 08.12.2022 in Appeal from Order No. 86/2022 by which the High Court allowed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondents herein and thereby set aside the order of injunction which was passed by the trial court below Exhibit-5 in favour of the appellants herein. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also looked into the materials on record. SUIT PROCEEDINGS 4. The appellants herein, who are the original plaintiffs before the trial court, instituted the Special Ci
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →