JEEVAJYOTHI ASHRAMA Vs. B.P. RAMAMANOHARA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against condition Nos. 3 and 6 imposed by the learned Munsiff in Original Suit No. III of 1990 while rejecting application I.A. No. 11 filed by first Respondent -Plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure

(2.) THE facts are that the first Respondent -Plaintiff son of Respondents 2 and 3 instituted the suit Original Suit No. 111 of 1990 claiming his 1/3rd share by partition in the property alienated by his parents in favour of the 5th Defendant who is the Petitioner in this revision petition before this Court. The application I.A. No. II was for interim injunction to prevent the revision Petitioner from putting up construction on the plaint schedule property. The said application was. contested and after considering the submissions on both sides, the learned Munsiff proceeded to dismiss the application imposing certain conditions of which conditions at Serial Nos. 3 and 6 are challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that revision is not directed against the dismissal of the application for grant of injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure According to him, the Trial Court has power to impose conditions under Section 94(1)(e) and Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure while rejecting application for injunction. Therefore, according to him the conditions imposed in such order while rejecting the application for injunction can be subject -matter of revision. It is therefore pointed out that condition No. 3 is inconsistent with condition No. 2 by which the Petitioner is permitted to create any encumbrance which would be subject to the final result in the suit. He further submitted that condition No. 6 requires the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 15,000/ - and is totally foreign to the scope of the suit. It is replied that condition No. 2 is in respect of past encumbrance and condition No. 3 is in respect of future encumbrance and condition No. 3 is not inconsistent with the condition No. 2. With regard to condition No. 6 that the Petitioner should deposit Rs. 15,000/ - into Court and construct the building, it is replied that the amount is to meet the expenses of demolition, if necessary.