The Supreme Court noted that a suit filed solely for injunction simpliciter cannot be dismissed merely because it does not include a declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), particularly when the defendants do not contest the plaintiffs’ title.
“It is a well-settled principle that if the defendants do not challenge the plaintiffs’ title, the suit should not fail simply because it is filed for injunction simpliciter without seeking a declaration,” the Court observed.
The bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, was addressing a case stemming from an Orissa High Court decision. In that case, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the trial court’s order and ruled that the plaintiff’s suit for injunction simpliciter, without a request for declaratory relief under Section 34 of the SRA, was not maintainable.
The appellant/plaintiff argued that the High Court had overlooked the fact that the defendant did not dispute the plaintiff’s title to the suit property, and this oversight led to an erroneous reversal of the trial court’s well-reasoned decision.
Accepting this contention, the Supreme Court remarked, “In the entire impugned judgment of the High Court, there is no discussion on the issue of title to the property.”
The Court questioned how the High Court could dismiss the plaintiff’s suit on the ground that it sought only an injunction simpliciter without declaratory relief, despite the absence of any discussion on the title dispute.
Finding the High Court’s judgment flawed for failing to consider key issues and applicable legal principles, the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration within three months.
Case Name: Krushna Chandra Behera and Ors. Versus Narayan Nayak and Ors.
Lawcutor 