PAPI KOTHA Vs. JANAKI BHANUMATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for decision in this civil revision petition is whether a defendant is entitled to ask for a temporary injunction. The plaintiffs sued for declaration of their title to and possession of the property in dispute. The defendants who claimed to be in possession applied for a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from entering into possession of the property. This was allowed by the Trial Court but on appeal the order was set aside. The defendants have preferred this civil revision petition.

(2.) The learned District Judge was of the view that the application did not fall within the provisions of R.1 and 2 of O.39, Code of Civil Procedure, that S.151 of the Code did not apply and that the prayer could not therefore be granted. These conclusions cannot be supported. The provisions of O.39 are not exhaustive so far as the grant of temporary injunctions is concerned and it is incorrect to say that S.151 cannot be invoked in appropriate cases. This is what the Supreme Court has held in Manohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal ( AIR 1962 SC 527 ). The order of the District Judge must therefore be set aside as he declined to go into the merits.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents urged that there was no point in remanding the matter to the lower appellate court as this is not a fit case for granting an injunction. According to him, it was open for the defendants to file a suit and apply for injunction and the mere fact that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for protecting their interests does not justify departure from the normal rule. This is certainly a matter which the District Judge can and ought to take into consideration. I do not wish to express any opinion on the matter at this stage.