Order No: 2                                                                                 Date:19/09/2023

Today is fixed for hearing injunction matter which has been filed by the complainant / applicant of this case.  The  O.P. of this M.A. Case as well as C.C. Case No. 168/2022  has contested  the M.A. Case by filing written objection.

Heard the argument of both sides.  Considered  submission.

Perused the injunction petition which has been filed by the complainant / applicant side.  Also examined the written objection which has been filed by O.P.

It is the main point of contention  and argument of the complainant / applicant  side that the O.P.  who is the promoter  and developer  is intending to create  3^rd Party interest in the allocated portion of the complainant who is the owner of the suit property.  It is also submitted that the  O.P. promoter cum developer  in spite of giving assurance of handing over the owner allocated share within specified  period, has not yet handed over possession  of the same.  It is alleged that the O.P.  promoter developer  is now trying to induct  3^rd person in the complainant’s  allocated  share  and for that reason there is urgent necessity of passing an order of injunction.

On the other hand  the O.P. promoter developer  by highlighting  the Clause  10 of the Development Agreement pointed out that the complainant side has already vested  Power of Attorney  in the matter of selling the flats constructed  in the suit premises and for that reason the entire G+5 building cannot be  injuncted.

It is admitted fact that this District Commission after making  scrutiny  of the documents and materials  of M.A. Case No. 92/2023 as well as C.C. Case No. 168/2022 has already  passed the order of ad-interim  injunction  in favour of the complainant restraining  the O.P. from creating  any 3^rd Party  interest in the suit property.  It is also admitted fact that the said order  of ad-interim  injunction  has been extended  time to time even after appearance of the O.P. in the above noted complaint case. There is no dispute over the issue that the complainant has allocated share in the suit premises and in spite of having share if the complainant ‘s share is transferred to the 3^rd Party, the complainant who is  an aged lady shall suffer irreparable  loss and injury and the main purpose of passing such order of injunction would be  defeated by delay.  Moreover,  as per Clause 16 of the Development Agreement  the complainant has her share in the suit property.

Considering  all the aspects, this District Commission  is of the view that there is urgent necessity of making  the ad-interim  order of injunction absolute till the disposal of C.C. Case No. 168/2022/

So, the ad-interim  order of injunction  which is passed in this M.A. Case vide order No. 1 dt. 18.07.2023 is made absolute  till the disposal of C.C. Case No. 168/2022.

In the light of the observation made  above  the M.A. Case  No. 92 / 2023 is disposed of on contest.  Let the case record of M.A. Case No. 92/2023 be tagged with the case  record of C.C. Case No. 168/2022.

Dictated & corrected by me.

President