Holding

Findings in interlocutory injunction proceedings are prima facie and confined to that proceeding; they do not affect the disposal of the civil suit on its merits.

Summary

The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking declaration of tenancy and a permanent injunction, and during the suit applied for a temporary injunction under Order 39 of the CPC. The trial court granted the injunction, directing a status‑quo and finding the plaintiff prima facie in possession. On appeal, the High Court modified the order, appointed a special officer to take possession, set a deadline for the suit, and invoked Section 340 of the CrPC to direct a criminal complaint against the defendants for alleged fabrication of documents under Section 196 IPC. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the direction to lodge the criminal complaint. The Supreme Court held that findings in interlocutory injunction proceedings are merely prima facie and limited to those proceedings, and cannot prejudice the merits of the main civil suit, which must be decided on the pleadings and evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the injunction order, stayed the direction to lodge a criminal complaint, and directed that the civil suit be decided on its merits within a year.

Issues considered

Whether findings recorded in interlocutory injunction proceedings can affect the merits of the underlying civil suit.
Whether the High Court could, under Section 340 of the CrPC, direct the lodging of a criminal complaint based on those interlocutory findings.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, s. Section 151
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 340
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 196

Subjects

interlocutory injunctiontemporary injunctionstatus quoprima facie findingsSection 340 CrPCcriminal complaintcivil suit meritsappeal

Judgment

. [2017] 3 S.C.R. 538

A AYAN CHATTERJEE
v.
FUTURE TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION INC. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5655 of2007)
APRIL 18, 2017
B
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABIIAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 39, rr. 1 & 2 -
Interlocutory Orders/Proceedings - Nature and effect of - Civil
suit by respondent no. I-plaintiff for declaration and permanent
injunction against appellant-defendant - Tempormy injunction also
c sought - While deciding the temporary injunction application, trial
court inter alia directed parties 10 maintain status-quo - High Court
while deciding appeals against the interlocutory order, invoked
powe1~s u/s. 340, CrPC and directed lodging of a complaint against
the appellant for having allegedly fabricated some documents filed
D in· the suit - On appeal, held: The findings recorded while deciding
interlocutory proceedings such as the one in present case (injunction
proceedings) are prima facie in nature and their effect remains
confined to the disposal of interlocutory proceedings only - Such
findings do not come in the way of dfaposal of the civil suit on
merits which is decided on the basis of the pleadings and evidence
E in the suit - Since the parties are yet to adduce evidence on merits,
it is in the interest of all the parties that they adduce evidence so
that the civil suit out of which the present appeal arises itself is
disposed of, on merits -" Depending ilpon the outcome of the suit,
appropriate directions can always be given, including the one given
F by High Court - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 340 - Penal
Code, 1860 - s.J,96.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The findings recorded while deciding
interlocutory proceedings such as the one in this case (injunction
G pro£eedings) are prima facie in nature and their effect remains
confined to the disposal of the interlocutory proceedings only.
Such findings do not, in any manner, affect and come in the way of
disposal of the Civil Suit on merits which is decided on the basis
of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties in the suit.
[Para 16][542-D-E]
H
538
AYAN CHATTERJEE v. FUTURE TECHNOLOGY 539
FOUNDATION INC. & ORS.

1.2 The parties are yet to adduce the evidence on merits A
in support of their respective stand taken in the pleadings in the
civil suit, thus, it would be in the interest of all the parties
concerned, that they adduce evidence so that the Trial Court is
able to decide the civil suit on merits in accordance with law. The
Trial Court would decide the suit uninfluenced by any of the
B
findings recorded and observations made by the Trial Court and
also by the High Court in the impugned ordcr.[Para 17] [542-E-
F]
1.3 Depending upon the outcome of the suit, appropriate
directions, as the case may be, can always be given including the
one given by the High Court, if occasion so arises and if need be.
c
[Para 18] [542-G)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5655
of2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2005 of the High Court D
at Calcutta in F. M.A. T. Nos. 1335 of2005.
·.·_,. Abhijit Sengupta, Adv. for the Appellant.
D. N. Ray, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advs. for_
the _!{espondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed by
defendant No.2 against the final judgment and order dated 21.07.2005
passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A.T. No. 1335 of 2005
whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein
F
against the order dated 06.04.2005 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr.Div.),
IXth Court at Ali pore in T.S. No.3 of2005.
2. We need not burden the order by setting out the facts in detail
except to the extent necessary to appreciate the short controversy involved
in the appeal.
G
3. The appellant is defendant No.2 whereas respondent No. I is
the plaintiff, respondent No. 2 is defendant No. I. and respondent No. 3
is defendant No. 3 in the Civil Suit out of which this appeal arises.
4. Respondent No. 1 has filed a Civil Suit being 'title Suit No. 3 of
2005 in the Court of!Xth Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ali pore against H

..:- '-
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The suit is for a de.claration
that respondent No. I was and continues to be a tenant under respondent
No. 2 in relation to the suit property. Respondent No. I has also prayed
for grant of permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 2 and the .
appellant, their servants and the agents from interfering with peaceful
possession of respondent No. I in the suit property. A further prayer is
B
made that the appellant be also restrained from operating the Bank
Account ofrespondent No. I bearing current account No.0029-136274-
050 with respondent No. 3.
5. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No. I, in order to
C . protect their rights, which are subject matter of the civil suit, filed an
application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as "the Code")
and sought temporary injunction against the defendants (appellant,
respondent Nos. 2 and 3) restraining them from interfering in respondent
No. 1's possession over the suit property etc.
D 6. Respondent No. 2 and the appellant, who were the contesting
defendant Nos. I and 2 respectively filed their reply and opposed the
prayer for grant of temporary injunction made by respondent No. I ..
7. The Trial Com1, by order dated 6.4.2005, while disposing of
the i1~unction application directed the pa11ies to maintain status-quo over
E the suit property. It recorded a finding that the plaintiff is prima facie
found to be in possession of the suit prope11y and that defendant No. 2
could not prove his possession primafacie over the suit property.
8. Felt aggrieved, defendant Nos. I and 2 filed separate Misc.
Appeals before the High Court whereas the plaintiff also filed Misc.
F Appeal against the aforesaid order of the Trial Court. The High Court,
by impugned judgment, dismissed the appeals filed by defendant Nos. I
and 2 whereas allowed in part the appeal filed by the plaintiff and
accordingly modified the order of the Trial Court to the effect that the
special officer be appointed to take possession of the suit property which
would remain in his possession till the disposal of the Suit. It was also
G
directed that this direction would be subject to the result of the Civil Suit.
9. While disposing of the three appeals, the High Court also
directed the Trial Court to decide the Civil Suit on or before 31.12.2005
on merits. The High Court then also invoked powers under Section 340
H ·of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "Cr.P.C.) and directed
AYAN CHATTERJEE v. FUTURE TECHNOLOGY 541
FOUNDATION INC. & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

the Registrar Ge1ieral of the High Court to lodge a complaint against the A
appellant and respondent No. 2 for their prosecution for having allegedly
committed offence punishable under Section 196 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 by fabricating some documents filed by them inthe suit to
secure the orders in their favour. The directions read as under:
"After careful scrutiny of the Xerox copies of the B
two agreements and the receipt granted by defendant
No.1 in favour of the defendant no.2 for Rs.72000/-,
we are prima facie convinced that those are fabricated
ones and were relied upon by the defendant nos.1
and 2 with the object of defrauding the Court with an
eye to obtain favourable order in their favour and as c
such, they have prima facie committed an offence
under Section 196 of the Indian Penal Code; it is,
therefore, expedient in the interest of justice that an
enquiry should be made to ascertain whether those
documents included in the paper book between pages D
107 and 123 are really fabricated ones. We accordingly
. in exercise of our power conferred under Section 340
of the Code of Criminal Procedure direct the learned "-._.

Registrar General of this Court to lodge a-complaint
before the appropriate court against the defendant
nos. 1 and 2 alleging offence under Section 196 of the E
Indian Penal Code on the aforesaid facts."
I 0. Felt aggrieved, defendant No. 2 has filed this appeal by way
of special leave before this Court.
11. On 05.12.2005, this Court issued notice to the respondents
only qua direction given by the High Court to the Registrar General of F
the High Court to lodge a complaint under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
During the pendency of the S.L.P., this Court stayed the implementation
of the impugned directions. In other words, this Court dismissed the
special leave petition insofar as it relates to the main controversy decided
by the High Court in relation to the grant of injunction and confined this G
appeal to examine the legality and correctness of the impugned directions
quoted supra.
12. Even on second call, none appeared for the appellant. Mr. -
D.N.Ray appeared for respondent No. I.
13. In the interest ofjustice, we permitted the appellant to submit H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R.

A the written submissions within three days. The appellant has filed the
written submissions.
14.Having perused the record of the case, the written submissions
filed by the appellant and on hearing the submissions oflearned counsel
for respondent No. 1, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal with
B observations made infra.
15.ln our considered opinion, having regard to the' nature of
controversy involved in the pending Civil Suit and the one which has
traveled to this Court out of interlocutory proceedings, it would be in the
interest of all the parties that the Civil Suit out of which this appeal
c arises itself is disposed of on its merits in accordance with law
uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the Trial Court and the
High Court while deciding the injunction application which is the subject
matter of this appeal.
16. In our considered view, even otherwise, the findings recorded
D while deciding interlocutory proceedings such as the 01ie in this case
(injunction proceedings) are primafacie in nature and their effect remains
confined to the disposal of the interlocutory proceedings only. Such
findings, in our view, do not, in any manner, affect and come in the way
of disposal of the Civil Suit on merits which is decided on the basis of the
pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties in the suit.
E
17.lt is for this reason, we are of the view that since the parties
are yet to adduce the evidence on merits in support of their respective
stand taken in the pleadings in the Civil Suit, it would be in the interest of
all the parties concerned, that they adduce evidence so that the Trial
Court is able to decide the Civil Suit on merits in accordance with law.
F Needless to say, the Trial Court would decide the suit uninfluenced by
any of the findings recorded and observations made by the Trial Court in
its order dated 06.04.2005 and also by the High Court in the impugned
·order.
18. Depending upon the outcome of the suit, appropriate directions,
G as the case may be, can always be given including the one given by the
High Court, if occasion so arises and if need be. We, therefore, at this
stage, refrain from making any observation in the order.
19. Let the Civil Suit be decided by the Trial Court, as directed
above, within one year as an outer limit strictly in accordance with law.
H Till then, the interim order dated 05.12.2005 of this Com1 would remain
AYAN CHATTERJEE v. FUTURE TECHNOLOGY 543
FOUNDATION INC. & ORS. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

in operation so also the impugned order passed by the High Court which A
this CoUii has affirmed in relation to the grant of injunction regarding
preservation of suit prope1iy.
20. Parties to appear before the Trial Cou1t on 02.05.2017 and
produce the copy of this order to enable the Trial CoUit to proceed with
the trial of the suit. Since none had appeared for the appellant before B
this Court for prosecuting the appeal, the Trial Court shall issue notice to
all the parties (if nqi;Jody appears on 02.05.2017 on behalf of the parties)
in the suit for their appearance on the date to be fixed by the Trial Court
for proceedings fu1ther in the trial, as directed above.
21.ln view of foregoing discussion, the appeal stands accordingly c
disposed of.

Divya Pandey Appeal disposed of.

)