SUGANDA BAI Vs. SULU BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision preferred by the plaintiff arises out of an application made by defendant 1 for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with her alleged possession of the suit properties.

(2.) The plainiff brought a suit in the Court of the Munsiff at Aland for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession. The cause of action as stated in the plaint is that the defendants begen to interfere with the plaintiff s possession in the year 1970. After the suit was filed, the plaintiff did not ask for any temporary injunction. In the year 1973, defendant 1 made an application under Or.39, Rr.1 & 2, read with S: 151, CPC, for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the defendants' possession of the suit property That application was allowed by the trial Court and the said order was confirmed by the appellate Court. It is against the said order of the Court below that this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Now the principles, under which a defendant may seek and obtain an order of temporary iniunction against the plaintiff, are stated in Collison v. Warren, 1901 1 ChD 812, where Buckley, j , after referring to a number of earlier decisions of the English Courts, queted Lopes, LJ., in (1824) 2 Ch.545 : The question is this-whether the defendant can move for an injunction against the plaintiff without filing a counter-claim or issuing a writ in a cross-action In my opinion, he can in some cases, but only in cases where the defendant's claim to relief arises out of the plaintiff's cause of action, or is incidental to it. Buckley, J., also referred to the decision of Davev, LJ. in the same case wherein it is stated thus .