Interim Injunction Denied due to Prima Facie Failure and Material Suppression of Prior Sale Consideration.

The Appellant (plaintiff), a tenant on the first floor of property B-20, Jungpura Extension, entered into an Agreement to Sell with the Respondent (landlord) on 27.12.2022 for the said first floor.

Subsequently, the Appellant alleged that a second Agreement to Sell was executed on 12.09.2023 for both the ground and first floors for a total consideration of ₹1,65,00,000/-.

The Appellant claimed he paid ₹45,55,000/- via bank transfers and offered the balance, which the Respondent refused.

The Respondent contested the suit, claiming the first agreement for the first floor alone was for ₹2,26,00,000/- and that the second agreement was forged/fabricated.

The Trial Court dismissed the Appellant’s Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC application for interim injunction on 31.01.2025, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the Appellant established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury to warrant an interlocutory injunction against the Respondent.

2. Whether the Appellate Court should interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court refusing the injunction.

The court applied the "Triple Test" for interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, as established in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. vs. Coca Cola Co., requiring the concurrent existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

Regarding appellate intervention, the court followed Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan, which mandate that an Appellate Court should not interfere with a Trial Court’s discretion unless the order is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.

The principle of suppressio veri (suppression of truth) was also applied regarding the disclosure of material facts in the plaint.

The Court found that the Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case due to significant inconsistencies and concealment of facts.

Specifically, the Appellant suppressed the fact that the first agreement for one floor was for a much higher value (₹2.26 Crores) than the second alleged agreement for two floors (₹1.65 Crores).

The Court noted that most payments claimed by the Appellant were made prior to the first agreement, undermining the claim that they were earnest money for the second agreement.

Relying on the Trial Court’s observation of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi, the Court held that the Appellant's lack of transparency disentitled him to equitable relief.

Consequently, the balance of convenience did not favor the Appellant.

The Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the Trial Court’s discretion as the Appellant failed the triple test for an injunction and was guilty of concealing material facts regarding the sale consideration.

The application for interim relief remained dismissed.