BHAN SINGH Vs. S KANWALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six persons instituted a suit in the Court of Shri S. C. Ahuja, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi for a declaration and permanent injunction. An application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, was also filed praying that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the work of S. Bhan Singh, plaintiff No. 1, as Secretary of defendant No. 1, the Prince Bus Service, during the pendency of the suit. It was alleged that S. Kanwaljit Singhdefendant was interfering with the work of plaintiff No. 1 as Secretary of the Association. This prayer was contested and the learned Subordinate Judge trying the suit considered it proper to restrain defendant No. 1 from interfering with plaintiff No. 1 in the discharge of his duties as Secretary of the Association in question. The defendant was also restrained from disturbing the possession of plaintiff No. 1 of the office located in room No. 5 where, according to him, be acted as Secretary.

(2.) The matter was taken on appeal to the Court of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, who reversed the order of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiff. I consider it proper to reproduce the exact words of the lower Appellate Court:

(3.) Before me on revision, Shri S. L. Bhatia, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, has very strongly argued that the lower Appellate ^ Court has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by allowing fresh documents to be placed on the record and to be taken into account. He has, in support of his submission, relied on Arian Singh v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1951 SC 193, according to which, the discretion given to the Appellate Court by Order 41, Rule 27, to receive and admit additional evidence is not an arbitrary one, but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified in that rule. To allow additional evidence to be adduced contrary to the principles governing reception of such evidence is, according to this decision, a case of improper exercise of discretion and the evidence thus brought on the record deserves to be ignored. In regard to the question of balance of convenience, the learned counsel has submitted that even though it be a question of status for the plaintiff, but if he is entitled as of right to claim that status, then his right cannot be defeated merely because the controversy centres round status. In this respect, the counsel argues, the Court below has again committed a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.