Drafting
Suit for permanent injunction and
Application for Caveat
Submitted To: Submitted By:
Ms. Sital Sharma Prince Arshdeep Singh Wander
B.com LL.B (Hons.)
Semester VIII
152/15
Acknowledgment
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my professor for Drafting Ms. Sital Sharma for
giving me an opportunity to work on Drafting of permanent injunction and application for
Caveat. The subject of Drafting is very important. He is no advocate who does not perfect the art
of good drafting. Drafting is the preliminary part of the case and a good draft makes a great
impression on the judge. Thus it becomes very important for anyone seeking to establish a career
in litigation to develop a command on litigation.
Though extreme care has been taken in the preparation of this project, some errors might have
crept into, either unknowingly or due to lack of knowledge on my part. Apologies are sought for
the same.
Prince Arshdeep Singh Wander
Permanent Injunction
Every court which is constituted for the purpose of administering justice must be deemed to
possess all the powers that are necessary to do complete justice to the parties. An “Injunction”
(preventive relief) is a “judicial process” whereby court either orders or compels a party to do a
particular act or where a party or prohibits a person from doing any particular actor continuing
any act.
Injunction is an act in personam and not in rem.
TYPES OF INJUNCTION:
Mandatory Injunction: where a person is compelled or directed by the court to do something;
Preventive or Prohibitive Injunction: where a party is told not to do a particular act.
Permanent Injunction: where a person is directed to do or to refrain from doing a particular act
forever;
Temporary Injunction: It is a type of interim relief that may be granted to party before the legal
rights or obligations or title is fully adjudicated by the court.
TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS:
Order 39 Rule 1 to Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs the Temporary Injunction
where interim or ad interim relief may be granted by a court to one party in the interest of justice,
if it seems to the court that other party may cause destruction or damage the property or create
any injury to the former party or may commit breach of contract. The “object” of temporary or
interlocutory injunctions is basically “to maintain the status quo of the parties”. “Burden of
Proving” that damage or injury may be caused if no injunction is passed is upon the „plaintiff‟.
Thus, plaintiff is to make up a case which prima facie reflects that grant of injunction is
necessary. 1
PERPETUAL/PERMANENT INJUNCTION:
Section 38 to Section 41, Specific Relief Act governs the grant of perpetual injunction and it
may be granted by the court where it seems to the court that some ‘obligation exists’ in the
favour of the plaintiff and such ‘obligation arises from the contract’ and there ‘exist no standard
for ascertaining the actual damage or loss likely to be caused’ in case of breach of contract.
Also, that loss is likely to be caused if not restrained by the court is such that there will be no
1
Dalpat Kumar vs. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 S.C.C. 719
recovery of the loss and ‘money compensation would not afford to be the adequate relief’2 in
such case. It is necessary that, there must exist some obligation which may either arise from
some contract i.e. contractual obligation or obligation arising under torts like obligation of
trustee etc.
However, the grant of perpetual injunction can be refused where it has been claimed basically to
restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding unless such restraint is necessary to
prevent multiplicity of proceedings or to restrain the person from proceeding to any legislative
body or to prevent breach of contract performance of which would be specifically enforced or
where equally efficacious relief is available to be awarded to plaintiff or where plaintiff has no
personal interest in the matter or where conduct and misbehaviour of plaintiff disentitles him
from claiming assistance of the court.
2
American Cynamide vs. Eethicon Ltd 1975 .C 396.
IN THE HON‟BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIVISION), MOHALI.
Civil Suit No. Of 2016
Rajiv Bajaj son of Late Sh. Rajinder Pal BajajResident of H. No.2076 Sector -79, Mohali,
District Mohali.
. . . Plaintiff
Versus
Sanjiv Sharma son of Ravinder Pal Sharma resident of H. No.2456 –C, Phase -7, Mohali.
. . . . Defendant
Suit for possession of plot No. 1153-C, Phase –X, Mohali,
AND
Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from construction on the said plot mentioned in the head-
note of the plaint in any manner during the pendency of the
suit, further stay from transferring, mortgaging, selling or
gifting, sub-letting the plotin dispute in any manner.
Respectfully Showeth:-
1. That the plaintiff is the business partner of the defendant No.1 and both the plaintiff and the
defendant have been carrying out the business of chocolate manufacturing in Industrial Area
Ph 1 Chandigarh since 2006.
2. That the father of the plaintiff was an ex service man in the Public Works Department in the
State of Punjab and he had retired in January 2005. With the hard-earned money that he had
managed to save during the time of his service he purchased a plot in Mohali, the details of
which have been mentioned in the head note in September 2005 in a colony registered with
Punjab Urban Development Authority measuring 450 sq. mts. The sale deed has been
attached as Annexure P-1. The sale deed has been registered with the office of the Sub
Registrar, Mohali and the same has been annexed herewith as Annexure P-2.
3. Thatfather of the plaintiff No.1 died on 14.07.2008, leaving behind the plaintiffwho was his
only son. The plaintiff was the heir to the ancestral property and thus inherited the said plot
from his now deceased father. The copy of death certificate of the father of the plaintiff No.1
and transfer letter of the said house are annexed herewith as Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-
4.
4. That after the death of the father of the plaintiff, the financial situation of the house of the
plaintiff deteriorated and he was unable to provide for his family which consisted of his wife
and an infant daughter. The plaintiff being a hard working man, and to find newer sources of
income had to move to New Zealand in August 2008.
5. That the defendant and his family shared a close relationship with the plaintiff because of
the business and thus relying on the defendant‟s assurance, the plaintiff requested the
defendant and his family to look after plaintiff‟s family. It is pertinent to mention here that
the plaintiff‟s wife is an illiterate woman.
6. That, plaintiff then left for New Zealand and then acquired a work permit and started
working there as a truck driver. The plaintiff and the defendant then remained in constant
touch over social media, through phone calls and through letters. But suddenly after 2014,
the plaintiff lost touch with the defendant, and his phone calls remained unanswered and
letters remained undelievered. This made the plaintiff suspicious of the defendant‟s
intentions.
7. That the plaintiff came to know from his wife that the defendant had started a construction
on the said plot as has been mentioned in the head note and that on enquiry by the plaintiff‟s
wife the defendant rudely told her to stay away from the plot and also told her that the plot
no longer belonged to the plaintiff‟s family. He also told her that the plot had been
transferred by the plaintiff‟s wife herself in the defendant‟s name.
8. That on getting to know about the deeds of the defendant and the harassment faced by his
wife at the hands of the defendant, the plaintiff rushed back to India and after landing went
straight to the site of the plot where he was astonished to find out a board with the
defendant‟s name as the owner of the property. The plaintiff then contacted the defendant
and demanded an explanation from him to which he replied that the said property was sold
to him by his wife.
9. That on hearing this the plaintiff made a search for the purported sale deed in the office of
the Sub Registrar and found a sale deed bearing number 32456 and registered on 21 st
December 2015 in name of the defendant.
10. That the wife of the plaintiff being an illiterate woman was exploited by the defendant and
his family and the said sale deed is false and has no validity at all.
11. That the suit property is situate within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court and
the parties also residing in the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, the Court has
jurisdiction to try the case.
12. That the requisite court fee for the purpose of permanent injunction and jurisdiction is
assessed at Rs. 140/- and as such proper court fee of Rs.140/- has been affixed on this plaint.
13. That the plaintiff has not filed any such or similar civil suit on the same facts and grounds
and the same cause of action either in this Hon'ble Court or any other court of law. Hence,
this suit is being filed in this Hon'ble Court.
Prayer
It is therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree for possession said plot be passed in favour of
the plaintiff and further a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from
alienating the land in dispute mentioned in the head-note of the plaint in any manner during the
pendency of the suit, further stay from transferring, mortgaging or selling or gifting the land in
dispute, and a decree for demolition of the construction on the said plot be granted.
And
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be allowed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants in the interest of justice.
Mohali
Dated: 28.02.2016 Plaintiff
Through
(Prince Arshdeep Singh Wander)
Advocate
Counsel for the plaintiff
Verification:- Verified that the contents of Para No. 1 to 13 of the above suit are true and
correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Mohali
Dated: 28.02.2016 Plaintiff
Caveat Application
A Caveat is a Latin term which means, 'let a person beware' originated in the mid 16th century.
In law, it may be understood as a notice, especially in probate, that certain actions may not be
taken without informing the person who gave the notice. It may simply be understood as a
warning. In the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 it is mentioned in Section 148-A.
There are five basic ingredients to the section, which are discussed in brief,
i. Who may lodge a Caveat? (Clause 1)
Any person claiming a right to appear before the Court,
·Where an application is expected to be made
·Where an application has already been made
·In a suit or proceeding instituted
·In a suit or proceeding which is about to be instituted
May lodge a caveat thereof. It is substantive in a nature.
ii. Duties of the Caveator (Clause 2)
This clause is directive in nature. The person by whom the Caveat has been lodged is called a
Caveator. He shall,
·Serve a notice of the Caveat by registered post, acknowledgement due
·On the person by whom the application has been made
·On the person by whom the application is expected to be made
iii. Duty of the Court (Clause 3)
After a Caveat has been lodged under Clause 1, if any application is filed in any suit or
proceeding, the Court shall serve a notice of the application on the Caveator. This clause is
mandatory in nature.
iv. Duties of the Applicant (Clause 4)
It is directive in nature and says that, where a notice of any Caveat has been served on the
applicant, he shall furnish, at the expense of the Caveator,
·A copy of the application made by him.
·Copies of any paper or document which has been filed by him in support of his application.
·Copies of any paper or document which may be filed by him in support of his application.
v.Life of a Caveat Petition (Clause 5)
The life of the petition is 90 days, from the date on which it was lodged. The only exception is, if
the application already exists, or has been made before the said period, the clause ceases to exist.
All the above five ingredients are vital to a Caveat petition all the above are to be followed
austerely.
In the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Faridkot
Caveat Application 123 of 2019
Daljit Singh S/o Manjit Singh R/o #3456 City Enclave, Faridkot
…Proposed Petitioner
Versus
1. Harmanjit Singh S/o Naib Singh
2. Joginder Singh S/o Naib Singh
Both residents of #2389 Park Avenue, Faridkot
…Caveators
Caveat Application under Section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Respectfully Showeth:
1. That the caveators are brothers and are residents of the address abovementioned.
2. That the proposed petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the caveators in
the court of Civil Judge Faridkot through Suit No. 456 of 2019 dated 27.02.2019 titled
Daljit Singh v/s Harmanjit Singh and Ors.
3. That in the abovementioned suit the Learmend Civil Judge dismissed the prposed
petitioner‟s application seeking permanent injunction against the caveators via order
dated 03.03.2019. The copy of the said order is attached as Annexure P-1.
4. That the caveators apprehend that the prposed petitioner is likely to file a suit for specific
performance against them in the Court of Civil Judge Faridkot.
5. That the caveators submit that if a civil suit for specific performance is filed by the
proposed petitioner before this Hon‟ble Court, the caveators be given an opportunity to
put forth their cases nad also assist this Hon‟ble Court before any adverse order is passed
and an advance notice be given to the counsel for the caveators, so that the matter can be
argued at the preliminary stage. The address of the counsel is as follows:
Advocate Sumit Gupta
Advocate, District Court, Faridkot
#4567 Park Avenue, Faridkot-151203
Contact: 9646700464
It is therefore respectfully prayed that application may kindly be allowed and the
caveators may kindly be heard at the preliminary hearing of the civil suit if filed by the
proposed petitioner in the interest of justice.
Place: Faridkot
Date: 04.04.2019
Through counsel
Sh. Sumit Gupta
District Court, Chandigarh
