False Averments In Plaint Disentitle Plaintiff To Mandatory Injunction, Even If Encroachment Established: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Bench noted that the reliance on a false date of construction was a material suppression intended to circumvent the consequences of delay and acquiescence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the discretionary power to grant a mandatory injunction under Sections 36 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 cannot be exercised in favor of a party that intentionally misrepresents the timeline of events to gain a litigious advantage. The Court noted that while a demarcation report may indicate a technical encroachment, the conduct of the plaintiff remains a primary factor in determining the eligibility for discretionary relief.
Analysing the contradiction between the plaintiff's pleaded case and his prior written notices, the Court determined that the plaintiff’s reliance on a false date of construction was a material suppression intended to circumvent the consequences of delay and acquiescence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “…the learned Courts below had rightly declined the discretionary relief of mandatory injunction after finding that the conduct of the plaintiff was not fair and he had resorted to falsehood. The Courts were not bound to grant the relief even if the demarcation report proved the encroachment made by the defendants…”.
Senior Advocate Suneet Goel appeared for the appellants and Advocate Mohinder Verma appeared for the respondents.
As per the facts, the plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing on land in Village Shillar, Tehsil Kasauli. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had forcibly constructed a kitchen in October 1998 on a portion of the suit land.
However, the defendants maintained that the construction was much older and was carried out based on a family arrangement. During cross-examination, it was revealed that the plaintiff had actually issued a legal notice as early as 1994 complaining of the completed construction, which directly contradicted the claims made in the amended plaint.
Therafter, the Trial Court at Kasauli initially granted a limited injunction but refused the mandatory relief of demolition, noting that the possession was old and the plaintiff’s claims were inconsistent. This view was subsequently upheld by the learned District Judge, Solan, who found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s reliance on the 1994 notice as evidence of the construction's age.
The legal heirs of the plaintiff then approached the High Court in a second appeal, challenging the denial of the mandatory injunction.
The Court observed that Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act explicitly prohibits the grant of an injunction when the conduct of the plaintiff disentitles them to the assistance of the Court. It noted that the plaintiff’s admission regarding the 1994 notice proved that the averment of an October 1998 construction was patently false.
“…Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act provides that preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the Court by injunction, temporarily or perpetually. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act also provides that the Court may, in its discretion, grant an injunction to prevent the breach of the contract and also to compel performance of the requisite act. Section 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act provides that an injunction cannot be granted when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agent has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the Court. Therefore, no party can claim a relief of injunction as a matter of right, and the court has a discretion to refuse the grant of an injunction in suitable cases”, it noted.
The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the substantial questions of law raised. It affirmed the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, ruling that the discretionary relief was rightly withheld due to the plaintiff's lack of candor.
Cause Title: Ravinder Panwar and others v. Varinder and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:13032)
Appearances:
Appellants: Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, Vivek Negi, Vishwas Kaushal, Advocates.
Respondents: Mohinder Verma, Advocate.