LI Network
Published on: October 5, 2023 at 13:39 IST
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed concern over the practice of issuing injunction orders without proper consideration of essential legal elements.
The court expressed its dismay at the tendency of filing brief affidavits in cases seeking interim injunctions, leading to orders being passed by judges without due regard for legal requirements.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (dead) through LRs. (2012), where it emphasized the pivotal role of interim orders in determining the outcome of civil cases and stressed the need for judicial officers to exercise care and caution.
In the specific case before the court, a wife and her minor child had filed a suit for the partition of certain properties after the intestate demise of the husband. The defendants, who were the in-laws, had refused entry to the wife into the residence. Additionally, the wife had filed an interim application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC to prevent the alienation of the properties. The court granted the application after hearing both sides.
The counsel representing the defendants/appellants, M. Chalapathi Rao, challenged the interim application, arguing that the properties in question were the self-acquired assets of the deceased’s father, which had been overlooked by the trial court.
In response, counsel for the respondent, PSP Suresh Kumar, contended that the trial court had made the correct decision to safeguard the interests of the minor and her mother since there was a risk of property alienation, and preserving the status quo would not harm the defendants.
The High Court, Bench comprising Justice DVSS Somayajulu and Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana, observed that the Interim Application barely addressed the ‘prima facie’ case and ‘balance of convenience’ aspects. They emphasized that an injunction should not be granted merely on request; the petitioner must demonstrate that an order is necessary to maintain the existing state of affairs until a final hearing.
The petitioner must also establish a prima facie threat to the property, which requires protection.
The court found that the affidavit lacked crucial details. It noted that there was no mention in the application of property alienation or the creation of encumbrances, yet the trial court had granted an injunction.
In light of these circumstances, the impugned order was overturned.
The court made the following observations:
1. Lawyers drafting affidavits and applications, as well as the courts issuing orders, have a responsibility to exercise diligence and care in such matters, as interlocutory matters are often decided based on affidavits.
2. Insufficiently detailed affidavits are inadequate for granting relief. If there is a threat of dispossession, demolition, or alienation, it should be described with reasonable clarity. Any infringed rights and the manner of infringement should also be clearly stated.
3. Counsel drafting applications for injunctions should be aware of the established legal principles on the subject and draft affidavits with clarity and sufficient details. They should explain the perceived danger or threat, the infringed or likely-to-be-infringed rights, and other relevant facts.
4. Courts have a duty to carefully analyze the affidavits to determine if there is an infringement or threat warranting protective orders. The description of the infringement or threat should be considered, and the potential harm should be ascertainable. Clarity is essential before granting an order, and legal principles such as the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss should not be taken lightly.
With these observations, the civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed.
