Interim injunction and revisional interference were refused where no prima facie case existed and a statutory remedy was available.

Revisional interference under Section 115 CPC was held unwarranted where the courts below had concurrently refused interim injunction for want of a prima facie case. The Supreme Court found that the High Court misapprehended the legal position by treating an alleged error in assessment principles as sufficient to upset that concurrent view. In considering interim relief in a house-tax dispute, the Court treated the balance of convenience, the availability of an ordinary statutory appeal under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the equitable bar in Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as relevant factors against injunction. The merits of the assessment were left open for trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code with the concurrent refusal of interim injunction by the courts below. (ii) Whether, on the facts, the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience for grant of interim injunction in a house-tax matter, including the relevance of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code with the concurrent refusal of interim injunction by the courts below.

Analysis: The courts below had concurrently held that no interim injunction should issue, as the plaintiff had not shown a prima facie case. The High Court interfered on the footing that an erroneous view of the assessment principles had led to refusal of relief. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misapprehended the law in treating the supposed error as sufficient to override the concurrent view, and that such interference under revisional jurisdiction was not warranted on the materials before it.

Conclusion: The interference by the High Court was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience for grant of interim injunction in a house-tax matter, including the relevance of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The Court held that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act relied upon by the High Court had no clear bearing on the controversy, and expressly left the substantive assessment question open for decision in the suit. It further held that balance of convenience could not be ignored, and that the existence of an ordinary statutory appeal under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the equitable bar in Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 were relevant considerations against grant of an injunction.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to the interim injunction.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order granting interim relief was set aside and the refusal of injunction by the appellate court was restored, leaving the merits of the tax assessment open in the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: A court should not grant an interim injunction or interfere in revision on a misapprehension of law where the plaintiff has not established a clear prima facie case, the balance of convenience is against relief, and an adequate statutory remedy is available.

---