Injunction order jostling with each other


Respected Panelist,

 

There is a very old partnership firm, running its business from a rented property from its inception.

 

As time lapsed, Partners changed but business was always in same name.

 

Lastly there are 2(two) partners in the business “A” and “B”

 

When “B” tried to misappropriate the wealth of the firm and tried to transfer the rented property in his name. “A” filed a suit against “B”

 

Year 2015 – 2017

In a Title suit filed under O39 R1&2 with 151 CPC, Plaintiff “A” was granted an ad-interim Injunction Order in his favour against Defendant “B” which was subsequently made Absolute.  The Hon’ble Court directed the defendants “not to alienate, transfer or parting with possession of the properties of the partnership firm by any means till disposal of this suit”.

 

After series of hearing Hon’ble Court allowed the petition of Plaintiff “A” under O 40 R1 and appointed a Receiver to keep the accounts “of the said business after perusing all the materials documents in connection with the said business in presence of the parties and to distribute the share of the profits monthly in equal shares to the partners after deducting the monthly remuneration of the Receiver. The receiver is to submit quarterly reports to this Court until further order.”

 

Year 2018

After the visit of the Receiver, Defendant “B” completely parted with possession of the suit premises in smaller parts to 3 (three) outsiders / strangers “C” “D” and “E” and Defendant “B” in no more at the suit prmises.

 

These 3 (three) outsiders / strangers “C” “D” and “E”. individually filed Title suit under O39 R1&2 with 151 CPC against Plaintiff “A” and they were awarded with an ad-interim Injunction order in their individual suits against (now) Defendant “A” that “the defendant “A” is directed not to dispossess the plaintiff “C”, “D” “E” from the suit premises except in the due course of law till …… date….”

 

Defendant “A” has filed for vacating of ad-interim Injunction order under O39 R 4.

 

“C”, “D” “E”  and also Defendant “B” are taking adjournments on flimsy grounds. There sole objective is to drag the cases by any means.

 

In the mean time, they are changing the nature & character of the scheduled premises of “A”

 

“A” filed many police complaints for protection & safety but no help is extended till date from Police in the pretext of “Case is Civil in Nature”

 

What remedies are available to “A” to save his interest in rented property?

 

Please advice.

 

 

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

get proper advise from your advocate since he knows the case and will be in a better position to give remedy but you can consult and ask your advocate to try and get implead CDE in your suit by stating they are men of B and try to get injunction against them also, further try vacating the interim order obtained by them and in the meantime approach high court for getting order for finishing the suits in a time bound manner. 


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 



Respected Panetist,

1) Under which section "C" "D" & "E" should b made party as men of "B" in the original suit of "A" ?

2) Is there any provision (section) by which "C" "D" & "E" can be held laible  with "B" for Comtempt of Court Orders?

3) "C" "D" & "E"  annexed only two documents, 1) Current Rent Receipts & 2) Trade Licence. 

Trade Licence is for address "11 street" being used for suit premises at address "12 Street". Can this document be used against them to impeach for fraud & Cheating?

4) How  "A" without physical confrontation can restrain "C" "D" & "E" from trespassing and destroying furniture & fixtures?

5) What other options "A" can use to save his possession? Note: Local PS is with "B" and his associates "C" "D" & "E".

Please guide.

Thanks 

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

Ans 1. Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code

Ans 2. better finish of the suit if not file perjury application/contempt

Ans 3. same as 2

Ans 4. You can give seek police protection from local police if you have the possession with you if police does not act then move high court under section 482 for appropriate direction

Ans 5. same as 4


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

Respected Panelist,  

 

New Developments

 

The Ld. Court by an order directed the Ld. Receiver to inspect and lock the suit premises with the help of police personnel and the suit property is under lock & key of Ld. Receiver.

 

The outsiders “C” “D” and “E” have filed application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) to join as Party Defendant in the suit flied by “A” against “B” alleging that “A” and “B” has collision without serving notice to “B”.

 

“C”’ also filed an application under Sec 151 CPC for an order / relief so he can enjoy the part/room which “B” has given him access to use the said room without any agreement / document signed between “B” and “C” but they have obtained a “Rent receipt” from a purported landlord “F” for the said part/room and “C” and “F” has a tenancy agreement between themselves.

 

“D” and “E” also claiming they have rent receipts from purported landlord “F” but don’t have any tenancy agreement between themselves and “F”.

 

“C”, “D”  and “E” are claiming that they have NO relation with “A” and “B” but because they have rent receipts from “F” they have tenancy rights for the parts/rooms which are schedule suit property in case filed by “A” against “B”.

 

I shall be obliged to have your advice for the following:

 

My Question:

 

1) Is it enough for them to show rent receipts and become Party Defendant in the case of “A”?

2) Can they claim remedy of getting the suit property unlocked for their purported “tenancy rights”?

3) What legal options are available to “A” to stop “B” from this back door entry by his proxies and associates “C” “D” “E” and “F” subverting the Injunction order from the Ld. Court?

 

Thanks

 

 
Reply   
 

Respected Panelist,

Will appreciate to have your guidance to the following development:

1) Purported Landlord "F" as Non Party/Petitioner has filed an application under Article 227 for staying of Trial Court order by which Court appointed Ld. Receiver has been authorized to put his padlocks on the enteranc of the suit property with the help of Police.

2) Purported Landlord "F" suppresed the factual position that the Ld. Receiver has already complied with the said order and the suit property is under "Custodia Legis"

2) Hon'ble HC has passed an order:

"There will be an order of stay of operation of the impugned order till xxxx date ...."

My Queston/Query:

i) What would be the effect of said order of stay of operation upon the proceedings before the Trial Court?

ii) Can Outsider/Proxies "C", "D" and "E" by fiing application u/s 151 CPC claim relief to get the locks removed at this stage without "Framing of Issues" and Trail?

Note: Outsider/Proxies "C", "D" and "E" are submitting Xerox copies of some fabricated "Surrender Letter" by Plaintiff "A" to show their bonfide on their tenancy claim on the part/portion of the suit premises.

Looking forward for your valuable guidance.

Thanks

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu