UNIT-II

CIVIL PLEADINGS
SUIT FOR RECOVERY - ORDER 37 CPC
Order XXXVII of the CPC provides a fast-track legal mechanism
for the recovery of money based on written contracts, bills of
exchange, promissory notes, and similar documents.

It applies to certain courts including High Courts, Civil Courts,

fi
SUIT FOR RECOVERY - ORDER 37 CPC
Rule 1: Application of Order
Rule 2: Institution of summary suits upon bills of exchange, etc.
Rule 3: Defendant showing defence on merits to have leave to appear
Rule 4: Power to set aside decree
Rule 5: Power to order bills, etc., to be deposited with the of cer of court
Rule 6: Recovery of cost of noting non-acceptance of dishonoured bills
or notes
Rule 7: Procedure in suits

fi
 SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Injunctions are generally categorised into two types: temporary (interlocutory) and permanent
(perpetual). As the very expression denotes, a “temporary” injunction is one that is in force for
a limited duration of time, whereas a permanent injunction is one that remains in force forever.

Temporary injunctions are governed in accordance with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, while Permanent injunctions are governed in accordance with
Section 38 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963.
 The principles based on which the Court grants a permanent injunction have been provided
under Section 38 of the SRA, 1963.
• For contracts: Section 38(2) + Chapter II of the SRA, 1963.
• For other actionable wrongs: Section 38(3) of the SRA, 1963.

Generally, before granting the injunction, the court must be satis ed about the following aspects:

1. Prima facie case: the applicant must make out a Prima facie case in support of the right
claimed by him, the court must entertain that there is a bona de dispute raised by the
applicant.

2. Irreparable injury: applicant must also show that he will suffer irreparable injury if injunction
prayed is not granted, and that there is no other remedy open to him by which he can protect
himself from the consequences of the apprehended injury.

3. Balance of convenience: the balance of convenience must be in favour of the applicant. The
court must be satis ed that the comparative mischief, hardship or inconvenience which is
likely to be caused to the applicant by refusing the injunction will be greater than that which
is likely to be caused to the opposite opposite party by granting it.
fi
fi
fi
 Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta (2019)

Facts

In this case, an appeal before the Supreme Court was led to challenge the judgement of the Bombay High Court. Herein, the
Bombay High Court af rmed the judgement of the rst appellate court, whereby a permanent injunction was granted in favour
of the rst respondent. The rst respondent (tenant), while asserting that he was a tenant, sought a permanent injunction
against the landlord (the appellant), thereby restraining the landlord from disturbing the tenant’s peaceful possession of the
property. Upon a perusal of the evidence (both oral and documentary), the trial court dismissed the suit, thereby observing
that the rst respondent could not show that he was a tenant. The rst appellate court, however, observed that the Trial Court
had erred in its nding that the rst respondent was not a tenant. It was observed that the record did not show that the rst
respondent had vacated the property after the withdrawal of the suit. The Bombay High Court af rmed the judgement of the
rst appellate court. The question before the Supreme Court was this: since the rst respondent claimed that he was a tenant,
however, he could neither establish his actual possession nor prove that he paid rent for more than 15 years, then in these
circumstances can he claim and be granted a permanent injunction?

Held

It was observed by the Supreme Court that in any suit led under Section 38 of the SRA, 1963, a permanent injunction would
only be issued to that person who is in “actual possession” of that property. If such a person is unable to show that he was in
actual possession of such property on the date of the suit, then there can be no permanent injunction in that case. In this case,
the Supreme Court observed that the trial court was correct in its nding that the rst respondent could not prove his actual
possession of such property as on the date of the suit. In this light, the Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Bombay
High Court.
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (2022)
Facts
In this case, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, thereby challenging the judgement
rendered by the Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court confirmed the judgement of the trial
court and the first appellate court that issued an injunction against the defendant, thereby
restraining him from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. In this case, the suit was the
first instance filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the registered sale deed, a declaration that
the sale deed did not bind the plaintiff, and a permanent injunction seeking a return of the land
that was in the possession of the defendant. On a perusal of the evidence before it, the Trial
Court did not cancel the registered sale deed and also denied to grant a declaration as prayed by
the plaintiff. The effect, hence, was that the plaintiff was construed to have no title over the suit
property. However, the Trial Court did issue a permanent injunction against the defendant,
restraining him from interfering with the possession of 5 acres of land by the plaintiff. The
question before the Supreme Court thus was: if a plaintiff looses insofar as the plaintiff’s title
over the property is concerned and it is also declared that the defendant is the true owner of the
property, can there be a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff?
Held
The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Courts and the High Courts have erred in granting
permanent injunctions in favour of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court noted that upon an
adjudication of the rights of the parties and a declaration that the defendant was indeed the true
owner, there can be no injunction against the defendant, who is the true owner of the property.
Suit for Dissolution of Partnership Deed. Partnership Deed
 SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
The suit is led under Section 10 of the Speci c Relief Act:

• When there is no standard for ascertaining, actual damage caused by non-performance of contract

• When the act to be done is such that compensation in money would not be adequate relief

Section 14 of the act provides for following contracts which CANNOT be speci cally enforced:-

• Where compensation is adequate relief

• Where is speci c performance of material terms cannot be ascertained

• Determinable contract

• Contract which involves performance of continuous duty, which court cannot supervise.
fi
fi
fi
fi