Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a finding recorded while granting interim injunction that the eviction order was a nullity could be treated as finally deciding the suit, and whether the order granting injunction was unsustainable because the court did not separately record findings on balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
Analysis: A finding rendered at the stage of interim injunction is confined to the existence of a prima facie case and is based on the material then available. Such an opinion does not conclude the suit, does not operate as res judicata, and cannot prevent the trial court from deciding the issue afresh on the entire evidence. The court also noted that the injunction proceedings in the case had centred on the question whether the eviction order was a nullity, while the findings on balance of convenience and irreparable loss had not been specifically challenged.
Conclusion: The earlier observation about nullity did not dispose of the suit, and the omission to re-examine the other injunction ingredients did not vitiate the order. The review petition failed.
Final Conclusion: A prima facie determination made for interim relief remains limited to that stage and does not bind the trial of the suit on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: A finding recorded for deciding an application for interim injunction is confined to prima facie assessment and does not decide the suit or operate as res judicata.