BDA title documents and acquisition records warranted interim protection of the plaintiff’s possession.

Sunil Kumar Dasarathan sued for permanent injunction in O.S. No. 4441/2016, relying on a BDA auction-site confirmation and registered sale deed dated 3 November 2015.

He sought to amend the plaint schedule, which originally referred to Survey No. 341, to include Survey No. 255 following a rectification deed from the BDA; the Trial Court rejected that application.

It also refused his application for temporary injunction.

In a counter-suit, O.S. No. 4844/2016, Muniswamy Reddy and Bhagyaamma obtained temporary injunction against him.

Sunil challenged the amendment order under Article 227 and both injunction orders in these consolidated proceedings.

He also relied on the judgment in O.S. No. 3600/1984, which discussed acquisition of land in Survey No. 255 and the BDA’s status in relation to it.

1. Whether the plaint could be amended to include Survey No. 255 in the suit-property schedule, notwithstanding the Trial Court’s view that the amendment would alter the property’s identity.

2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to temporary injunction in O.S. No. 4441/2016 on the material then available.

3. Whether the temporary injunction granted to Muniswamy Reddy and Bhagyaamma in O.S. No. 4844/2016 should remain in force.

The Court considered Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which governs amendment of pleadings, and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, under which temporary injunctions are considered by reference to the prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury.

The Court also exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in reviewing the amendment order, and considered the appeals under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, which permits appeals from specified orders under Order XXXIX.

No judicial precedent was cited as the basis for the decision.

On amendment, the Court held that the Trial Court’s concern that adding Survey No. 255 would change the property’s identity could not be sustained in light of the earlier suit judgment’s findings concerning acquisition and the BDA’s interest in that survey number, together with the BDA’s subsequent rectification deed.

The Court stressed that allowing the amendment did not establish title or possession; those matters remained for trial.

On injunction, it found that the registered sale deed and rectification deed provided prima facie support for the plaintiff’s claim, while the defendants’ asserted possession required adjudication at trial.

Considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience and the material concerning acquisition, the Court concluded that the plaintiff’s injunction application should have been allowed.

In light of that relief, continuing the counter-injunction would be inconsistent.

It allowed MFA No. 2166/2017, set aside the refusal of temporary injunction and restrained defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession pending disposal of the suit, subject to final adjudication.

It also allowed MFA No. 2167/2017 and set aside the temporary injunction granted in favour of defendants 1 and 2 in the counter-suit.

The Court directed that its observations would not affect the trial on the merits and kept the parties’ contentions open.