Temporary Injunction Restricting Property Alienation Impermissible in Simple Money Recovery Suit.

The Plaintiff (Respondent No. 2) filed a suit for money recovery (Civil Suit No. 02-B/2022) alleging he paid ₹20,00,000 as earnest money for land based on an agreement to sell.

He claimed the Defendants committed fraud regarding the land's size and encumbrances and that refund cheques were dishonored.

The Defendants denied the agreement, asserting the amount was a loan transaction.

The Trial Court (Raipur) granted a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, restraining the Defendants from alienating the property.

The Appellant (Defendant No. 1) challenged this, arguing that in a suit for money recovery, the property was not the subject matter and an injunction against its alienation was erroneous.

1. Whether the Trial Court was justified in granting a temporary injunction against the alienation of property in a suit primarily seeking money recovery.

2. Whether the appeal should be entertained given the stall in trial proceedings due to the record being summoned by the High Court.

The Court considered Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the grant of temporary injunctions based on the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

The principles of judicial discretion in interlocutory matters and the necessity for the "expeditious disposal of suits" to meet the ends of justice were applied to balance the competing interests of the litigants.

The Court noted the conflict between the nature of the suit (money recovery) and the relief granted (restraint on property alienation).

While the Respondent argued that the Appellant had already attempted to alienate the property despite the injunction, the Court observed that the trial had been stalled since 2022 because the Trial Court record was attached to the current appeal.

Rather than adjudicating on the technical merits of the injunction in a money suit—where the Plaintiff could potentially recover from any asset upon decree—the Court determined that the most equitable solution was to ensure a final adjudication of the underlying dispute.

The Court found that since the suit was already several years old, a time-bound trial would resolve the controversy more effectively than an interim appellate intervention.

The appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to conclude Civil Suit No. 02-B/2022 within five months from the receipt of the order.

The Registry was ordered to return the record immediately, and parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15.05.2023.