Holding

The respondents did not have a concluded right to enforce an injunction, so the High Court's grant of injunction was erroneous and is set aside.

Summary

The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Committee advertised allotment of shops in a new market yard under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. Two respondents filed a suit seeking a perpetual injunction to restrain the Committee from making any allotments, and an interim injunction was granted by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court with additional relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the respondents possessed a concluded right to enforce such an injunction under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the CPC. It held that the respondents only had a right to apply for allotment and no vested right existed to justify a preventive injunction; consequently, the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Order 43 Rule 1. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' orders, allowed the appeal, and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents have a concluded right to obtain a perpetual or temporary injunction restraining the Market Committee from making shop allotments.
Whether the High Court erred in granting an injunction despite the absence of a vested right, thereby violating Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC.
Interpretation of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 with respect to the rights of existing shop holders.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 1 Rule 8, s. Order 39 Rule 2, s. Order 43 Rule 1
Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 36, s. 37

Subjects

injunctionpreventive reliefSpecific Relief ActCivil Procedure CodeOrder 43 Rule 1agricultural produce marketshop allotmentvested right

Judgment

A THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET
COMMITIEE, GONDAL AND ORS.
v.
SHRI GIRDHARBHAI RAMJIBHAI CHHANIYARA
AND ORS.
B MAY 5, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
c Order 1, Rule 8, Order 39, Rule 2, Order 43, Rule I-Marketing
Committee-Adve1tisement i11viti11g offers for allotment of shops in new
market yard-Suit filed for pe1petual injunction restraini11g Market Committee
from making allotments-Ad interim injunction granted by trial cowt and
confinned by High Cowt-Held, plaintiff-respondents do 11ot have at prese11t
D a11y co11cluded right to seek for e11forcement against the Ma1ket Commit-
tee-At best they have got a right to apply for a11d seek allotment-TI1e Cowt
has 11ot applied its mind to co11sider what would be the right which is claimed
to be infri11ged-High Cowt has committed not 011ly manifest e1Tor of law,
but crossed the limitations of Order 43 Rule I, i11 granti11g the relief-Specific
E Relief Act, 1963-Ss.36 and 37-Gujarat Agiicultural Produce Market Act,
1963.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3618 of
1997.

F From the Judgment and Ord~r dated 15.1.97 of the Gujarat High
Court in Civil Application No. 9563/96 in A.O. No. 537 of 1996.

H.N. Salve, Jayant Patel, Rakesh K. Khanna U. Tameem Hashmi and
Surya Kant for the Appellants.

G R.P. Bhattt and H.A Raichura for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

H Application for intervention is allowed.
74
AGRICULTIJREPRODUCEMARKEfCOMMIITEEGONDAL v. G.RCHHANIYARA 75

We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. A

This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, made on January 15, 1997 in Civil
Application No. 9563/96.

B
A few ·admitted facts are sufficient for the disposal of this case. The
Market Committee was constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat
Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (for short, the Act). Under the
Act, the Market Committee is under the statutory obligation to declare the
notified market area for the purpose of regulating the purchase and sale
of notified agricultural produce within the notified market and to establish C
it. As a facet thereof, advertisement had been published inviting offers from
the interested persons for allotment of shops in new market yard vide
notification dated November 23, 1991. The existing shop holders were
informed that if they were interested to surrender the shops in the existing
market area, they would be granted shop in the new market yard. In lieu D
thereof, they are required to pay the value of the shop equal to 7 years'
capitalised rent. They are designated as "shop for shop category". For
others it is designated as A type shops and. B type shops. For A type shops
they have tentatively fixed the price at Rs. 2.55 lakhs and for B type shops
Rs. 2.33 lakhs have been fixed. After the advertisement so made, respon- E
dents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for perpetual injunction in a representative
capacity under Order I, Rule 8, CPC restraining the Market Committee
from making allotment of the shops and ad interim injunction under Order
XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC was sought for and was granted by the trial Court.
On appeal, it was confirmed by the High Court with a further rider with F
which we deal at a later stage. Thus this appeal by special leave.

The primary question that arises for consideration is whether the
respondents have any right to be enforced by way of injunction? Part III
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals in that behalf by way of preventive
relief. Section 36 postulates that "[P)reventive relief is granted at the G
discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual." Temporary
or perpetual injunctions are regulated by Section 37, which reads as under:

"37. Temporary and perpetual injunctions. - (1) Temporary injunc-
tions are such as are to continue until a specified time, or until the H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A further order of the court, and they may be granted at any stage
of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908)

(2) A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree
made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit; the defendant
B is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or
from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the
right of the plaintiff."

It is seen that the respondents do not have at present any concluded
C right to seek for enforcement against the Market Committee. At best, they
have got a right to apply for and seek allotment in respect of those who
are governed by the second category, namely, A type and B type shops.
We are not concerned in this case with the first category, viz., shop for
shop because they are not seeking any relief by way of perpetual or
D temporary injunction in this behalf. Since the respondents are not having
any concluded right as at present, the court has not applied its mind to
consider what would be the right which is claimed to be infringed. The
High Court has further proceeded on the premises that they have a right,
without applying its mind; it has stated that the right is sought to be
E regulated by injunction, without looking into the above provisions of the
Act. The trial Court had stated as under :

"l. Temporary injunction against he defendant no. 1 their servants,
agents etc. is hereby granted restraining them in making allotment
of any shop on premium of Rs. 2,55,000 and Rs. 2,30,000 respec-
F tively for 'A' type and 'B' type shops are concerned (this is based
on XXVIII (2) G.L.R. 214). This interim injunction relates so far
as pltf. and others meaning thereby 81 persons and subject to
decision of High Court for 146 persons on record are concerned,
and it shall not effect to those allottees whom shops are allotted
G by draw previously held if any and to those whom allotment is
made otherwise than draw system.

2. Defendant no. 1 to frame legal and reasonable conditions for
the allotment of shop and thereafter defendant no.1 is allowed to
H make allotment of shops in ONE group consisting of plaintiffs and
AGRICULTIJREPRODUCEMARKEfCOMMITIEEGONDAI, v. G.RCHHANIYARA 77

persons on record and others in order to prevent fragmentation A
of group.

3. Subject to the decision of Hon'ble High Court in regard to 146
persons in Civil Revision application No. 1646/96, deft. no. 1 shall
protect right.
B
4. In order to avail opportunity to obtain shops in new market yard
to plaintiffs and others, and in order to avail defendant no. 1 to
repay loan and interest and to avail financial sources to defendant
no. 1, temporary injunction till the final disposal of the suit is
further granted as under : C
(i) All plaintiffs and other persons on record have raised conten-
tions and dispute about 'A' type and 'B' type shops in new market
yard. Therefore, subject lo the final determination of price of such
each type of shop. Plaintiffs and others on record subject to D
decision of necessary party by High Court are afforded an oppor-
tunity and directed to participate in draw for the allotment of each
type of shop.

(ii) For this plaintiff and other persons on record who want to
participate in allotment of the shop shall make payment of price E
at this stage nor more than Rs. 1,17,000 for 'A' type of shop and
Rs. 1,06,200 for 'B' type of shop; for this defendant no. 1 shall
afford facility of installment as available to other allottees.

(iii) Plaintiffs and other persons to take note that ii-bove payment F
of Rs. 1,17,000 and Rs. 1,06,200 is subject to the final determination
of the price that would ·be decided by the Court after recording
evidence and in final judgment of the suit."

The High Court has stated in the order as if there is' a concluded
right between the parties. Order XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC postulates that "in G
any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract
or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or
not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and
either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary
injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breac_h of contract H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind
arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right".
" As pointed out e~rlier, since the right of the respondents is still in embryo
even Order XXXIX, Rule 2, CPC is inapplicable and the enforcement
thereof is also unthinkable. The High Court has further enlarged the scope
of the relief which was not even sought for in the trial. The High Court
B observed as under :

"Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties
at length for the purpose of interim relief. Considering the dispute
involved in the case regarding the premium of A-Type and B-Type
c shops/godown, which are being constructed by the applicants, the <C;::

balance is required to be struck by way of granting ad-interim
relief. According to the applicants, Rs. 2,55,000 for A-Type
shop/godown and Rs. 2,20,000 for B-type shop/godown is the just
and proper price. However, the learned trial judge has fixed the
D price at Rs. 1,17,000 for A-type and Rs. 1,06,200 for B-Type on
the basis of the material produced before him; (which is the subject
matter of consideration in the Appeal From order) and, in any
,, case, the same cannot be faulted with at this stage as the correct-
ness thereof would be decided in the appeal and, if that is stayed,
E it would amount to allowing the appeal at this stage. Considering
the fact that the applicants have already allotted 250 shops-cum-
godowns prior to the passing of the impugned order, as can be
seen from the affidavit filed in this Civil Application by the ap-
plicants, coupled with the fact that the prices at the rate of Rs.
2,55,000 for A-Type and Rs. 2,30,000 for B-Type have been fixed,
F
and as the learned trial Judge has ·directed the suit to be disposed
of before March, 1997 wherein the exact price of the shops-cum-
godowns will be determined, it will be just, fit and expedient that
the following ad-interim order is passed to meet with the ends of
justice.
G
1. till the hearing and final disposal of the s'uit, the applicants will
collect the amount at the rate of Rs. 1,17,000 for A-Type and Rs.
..,
1,06,000 for B-Type shop-cum-godown from the allottees and the
respondent-plaintiff before making allotment of any shop-godown
H to them.
AGRICULlUREPRODUCEMARKEfCOMMITIBEGONDAL v. G.RCHHANIYARA 79

2. The allottees as well as the respondent-plaintiffs will make the A
payment, as stated above, at the time of handing over possession
of the shop/godown to them.

3. The applicant, as far as possible, will accommodate all the
respondent-plaintiffs, provided they agree and pay Rs. 1.17,000 for
A-Type and Rs. 1,06,000 for B-Type shop-godown for the time B
being, and will not allot any shop/godown to any other person, over
and above 250 allottees.

4. Since this being an ad-interim order, it is made clear to all the
allottees, including the respondent-plaintiffs, that they will have to C
abide by the decision in the suit. In other words, if the trial court
ultimately decides in favour of the applicants regarding the fixation
of the prices of the shop/godown, in that event, the allottees as
well as the respondent-plaintiffs will have to pay additional amount
forthwith failing which they will be liable to be evicted."
D
Thus, we hold that the High Court has committed not only manifest
error of law, but crossed the limitations of Order 43 Rule 1 in granting the
relief.

... The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the courts below
stand set aside. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit E
·as expeditiously as possible. It is open to the appellants to apply for
consideration of allotment of the shops, if they have not already applied
for. No costs.

R.P . Appeal allowed.

,_ ..~

-·