Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Refusal To Restrain Property Transfers In ₹13.72 Lakh Recovery Suit Over Disputed Security Agreement

The appellant-plaintiff claimed that respondent No. 1 had received a loan of ₹13,72,500 and agreed to keep a house property as security, with a provision for execution of a sale deed if the loan was not repaid. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of the amount and sought an interim injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from alienating the property.

Respondent No. 1 denied executing the agreement and alleged it was forged. The Trial Court dismissed the injunction application, and the appellant challenged that order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC permit temporary injunctions where the applicant establishes a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss; all three ingredients are essential, and failure to establish any one precludes relief.

The appeal against an order granting or refusing an injunction lies under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

The suit was for recovery of money, not specific performance, and respondent No. 1 disputed the alleged agreement as forged.

The Trial Court also noted that the property was recorded in respondent No. 1’s name in the revenue records. In those circumstances, the appellant had not established the essential injunction requirements, and restraining alienation would cause inconvenience and irreparable loss to respondent No. 1. The High Court found no illegality or material irregularity in the Trial Court’s decision.

It dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.