The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified a critical procedural aspect of temporary injunction applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In a judgment that reinforces the principle of proportionality in pleadings, the Court held that plaintiffs are not obliged to disclose prior agreements that do not form the basis of the suit. This ruling prevents defendants from defeating injunction applications by raising extraneous agreements, ensuring that the merits of the main claim remain the focal point of interim relief proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Rajesh Yadav, filed a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 07.01.2025, concerning three properties in Village Tigriya Sacha, Dewas. The agreement stipulated a sale consideration of ₹2.73 crore, with ₹75 lakh already paid as advance. The appellant sought a temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating the properties during the pendency of the suit.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2025: Civil suit filed for specific performance, accompanied by an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
- 17.06.2025: The trial court dismissed the injunction application, holding that the appellant had concealed a prior Sauda Chitthi (agreement to sell) dated 03.10.2024, which mentioned a higher consideration of ₹3.90 crore.
- 2025: The appellant filed a miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against the dismissal order.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Setting aside of the trial court’s order dismissing the injunction application.
- Grant of temporary injunction to maintain status quo regarding the suit properties.
- Expeditious disposal of the main suit.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the High Court was whether a plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is obliged to disclose prior agreements that do not form the basis of the suit, and whether non-disclosure of such agreements can justify the refusal of injunctive relief.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant contended that:
- The suit was based solely on the agreement to sell dated 07.01.2025, and the Sauda Chitthi was irrelevant to the claim.
- There was no obligation to disclose the Sauda Chitthi in the plaint or injunction application, as it was not the foundation of the suit.
- The trial court erred in dismissing the injunction application on the ground of concealment, despite the appellant having a prima facie case for specific performance.
For the Respondents
The respondents argued that:
- The Sauda Chitthi dated 03.10.2024, which mentioned a higher consideration, was a material fact that the appellant had concealed.
- The appellant had not come to court with clean hands, which justified the refusal of injunctive relief.
- The trial court’s order was in accordance with the principles laid down in Skol Breweries Limited v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Limited.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court undertook a meticulous examination of the clean hands doctrine and its application to temporary injunction proceedings. The Court observed:
"It is not in dispute that the civil suit has been filed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 07.01.2025. Even if prior to the agreement, Sauda Chitthi was entered into between the parties for an amount much more than the amount agreed in the agreement dated 07.01.2025, the appellant was not obliged to mention about Sauda Chitthi, which was not the basis of the suit filed by him."
The Court further held that the trial court had erred in allowing the Sauda Chitthi to influence its decision, as the respondents had not alleged fraud or duress in its execution. The reasoning adopted by the trial court was deemed legally unsustainable, as it failed to appreciate that the Sauda Chitthi was not the foundation of the suit.
The Court distinguished the precedent cited by the respondents, Skol Breweries Limited v. Som Distilleries and Breweries Limited, on the grounds that the facts of the present case did not warrant the application of the principles laid down therein. The judgment emphasized that the merits of the main claim should guide the grant of interim relief, rather than extraneous agreements.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s order dated 17.06.2025. The Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit properties during the pendency of the civil suit and urged the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Disclosure of Prior Agreements Is Not Mandatory
The judgment clarifies that plaintiffs seeking temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are not required to disclose prior agreements that do not form the basis of the suit. Practitioners should note:
- The clean hands doctrine cannot be invoked to defeat an injunction application based on non-disclosure of extraneous agreements.
- Defendants cannot rely on prior agreements to argue concealment unless such agreements are directly relevant to the suit.
Focus on the Merits of the Main Claim
Courts must evaluate injunction applications based on the prima facie case presented in the suit, rather than peripheral agreements. This ruling ensures that:
- Interim relief is not denied on technical grounds unrelated to the core dispute.
- The balance of convenience and irreparable injury remain the primary considerations for granting injunctions.
Limits of the Clean Hands Doctrine
The judgment restricts the scope of the clean hands doctrine in injunction proceedings. Practitioners must argue that:
- Non-disclosure must pertain to facts directly relevant to the suit.
- Allegations of concealment must be substantiated with evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.
- Extraneous agreements cannot be used to vitiate the grant of interim relief unless they materially affect the rights of the parties in the suit.
