1. Application Exh.5 is allowed.
2. Defendant No.7 is temporarily restrained from making allotment of land under 12.5% scheme in favour of Defendants No.1 to 6 until disposal of main suit.”
15. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants carried the matter in appeal to the High Court of Bombay which came to be allowed by the order impugned herein. The High Court noticed various proceedings reiterated by the plaintiffs without success and opined that the Courts below ignored the said fact 9 Page 9 while granting the injunction. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
“14. To my mind, there is a serious issue which needs to be tried as to whether the status as claimed and the declaration sought can be given in the facts and circumstances by the Civil Court. As held this issue cannot be ignored and, equally, maintainability of the proceedings. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that their predecessor has not been successful in obtaining that declaration. The last order in the list of dates and events, namely, that of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 8th December, 2009 records all findings against the original Plaintiffs.
15. When such serious issues were raised with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings and after checkered litigation, then, the Trial Court should not have restrained the CIDCO from making allotment of the land under 12.5% in favour of the Appellants/Original Defendant Nos.1 to 6 until disposal of the main suit. There is nothing in the impugned order which would enable me to hold that the original Plaintiffs have made out a strong prima facie case, that the balance of convenience is in their favour or that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to them if merely the CIDCO processes the application of the Defendant Nos.1 to 6/Appellants before me and makes any allotment in their favour.”
16. The plaintiffs in their pleadings of Suit No.632 of 2010 at para 19 have admitted that in the prior proceedings initiated by the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs Deo Kalya, Rama Kalya, Halya Kalya and Smt. Barkibai Kalya made statements to the effect that their names were wrongly entered in the 1 Page 10 revenue records through oversight. The said paragraph reads as follows:
“In order to deprive the plaintiffs from participating in acquisition proceedings and claiming proportionate share in the compensation, the predecessors in title of defendants to 1 to 6 without having locus and valid title deliberately filed Tenancy Case No.22/64 against Rama Kalya Patil and four others and 23/64 against Deo Kalya Patil to seek negative declaration that they were not concerned with the 49 Acres of the suit lands. In the said proceedings the predecessors in title of Defendants 1 to 6 by taking undue advantage of their poverty and illiteracy managed to procure depositions of Deo Kalya, Rama Kalya, Halya Kalya and Smt. Barkibai Kalya on 23.1.1965 against their own interest to the effect that their names were wrongly entered in the revenue records through oversight. The Tenancy Awal Karkun without holding any enquiry accepted depositions of the said persons as it is and deleted their names by his orders dated 30.1.1965. Copies of the depositions are filed herewith and the plaintiffs shall rely upon the same. The copies of the Orders dated 30.1.1965 are filed herewith and the plaintiffs shall rely upon the same.”
17. We do not wish to examine the implication of the said statement as such examination by this Court at this stage is, in our opinion, likely to adversely effect the rights of the parties in the suit one way or the other but it is a relevant factor which ought to be kept in mind before granting an interim order, such as the one passed by the trial Court.
1 Page 11
18. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that since the Tenancy Act is meant for protecting the interest of the tenants, the High Court (by the impugned judgment) ought not to have interfered with the interim injunction granted by the trial Court.
19. In response, Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the defendants submitted that the plaintiffs have already parted with their rights by assigning their rights, title or interest, whatever they assert in the disputed property, in favour of a third party for a consideration of an amount of Rs.8,39,14,001/-.
20. In our opinion, the petition such as the one on hand ought to have been dismissed on the simple ground that it arises out of an interlocutory order during the pendency of the suit. The legality of such interlocutory order has already been considered by an appellate Court which is a constitutional Court. But in matters where the stake is huge, such as the one on hand, passionate arguments are advanced before this 1 Page 12 court giving an impression that something really untoward has happened in the matter inducing the Court to undertake detailed examination.
21. On a closer examination, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Special Leave Petition is therefore, dismissed.
… J.
(J. Chelameswar) New Delhi; October 15, 2014 … J.
(A.K. Sikri) 1 Page 13