Skip to main content

Difference between Temporary Injunctions and Attachment before judgment

In PRABHA SURANA vs JAIDEEP HALWASIYA, the Calcutta High Court settled the difference between Temporary Injunctions and Attachment before judgment 

The court observed that a distinction should be drawn between the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 (Temporary Injunctions) and Order XXXVIII Rule 5 (Attachment before judgment). Order XXXIX Rule 1 contemplates temporary relief to a petitioner on an imminent risk to the property in dispute in the suit being wasted by certain acts of the respondent. If the Court finds from the materials before it, that the respondent intends to cause injury to the petitioner in the interregnum including by causing damage to, alienating, selling or removing the property, the Court is empowered to pass orders to prevent the property from being dealt with in such manner or in any way which is prejudicial to the petitioner until the suit is disposed of or until further orders are passed by the Court. The Court has the option to pass orders as it deems fit and on the satisfaction that circumstances warranting preservation of the property exist till the matter advances beyond the preliminary stage.

Order XXXVIII Rule 5 applies at a later stage in a suit where the petitioner seeks to execute a decree. The section, by its very description, applies to an order which lends finality to the suit and aims at preserving the state of affairs after the interim stage in the suit is over. The primary intention of the Court at this stage is to secure the petitioner against the respondent from disposing of or removing his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

While both sections intend to give a protective cover to the petitioner at the time of institution of and during pendency of the suit in terms of preserving the property which would afford relief to the petitioner in real terms, there is an important distinction in the nature of the property contemplated under the provisions. Under Order XXXIX Rule 1, the property sought to be preserved is ‘property in dispute in a suit’, whereas, it is the respondent’s property under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 - the words used are ‘his property’ following specific reference to ‘…the respondent, with intent to obstruct or delay…’. The distinction reinforces the need to preserve the suit property till final orders are passed in the former and to secure the petitioner for facilitating execution of a decree in the latter. Although, the terms ‘order’ and ‘decree’ can be interchangeably used depending on the nature of the application, the thrust of the two provisions, read together, is saving the suit property till the right of the petitioner is established to proceed with the suit and to save the petitioner from the decree – or the possibility thereof – being frustrated once the suit nears culmination.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more