ITTEN Vs. SUBRAMONIA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the plaintiff in 0. S. 174/57 district Munsiff's Court, Meenachil against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Meenachil reversing the order of the trial court issuing a temporary injunction in his favour.

(2.) IT is unnecessary for me to go in any great detail in this matter, because I am satisfied that the order of the learned Subordinate judge refusing to grant the temporary injunction, is perfectly within his jurisdiction and correct in law.

(3.) MR. Paikaday very vehemently contended that the plaintiff's case will come under R. 2 of Order XXXIX and that there is an injury which his client is likely to suffer by allowing the defendant to execute the decree and thus dispossess him from the property. I do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel, because, in my opinion, a person who has obtained a decree which has become final, and trying to get a sale or possession of the property in pursuance of that decree, cannot be said to commit any injury in the sense it is understood in law in respect of any party or property. In this view, even the second contention of MR. Paikaday fails. More than that, there is also the admitted fact that the present plaintiff took steps to have the sale, in pursuance of which possession is now sought to be taken by the defendant, set aside and he has miserably failed in that application also. Further, there is also no dispute that the plaintiff claims rights, if any, only as a purchaser pendente lite. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of substance and is dismissed with costs. The learned trial judge will dispose of the suit on the merits without having any reference to the observations contained in the judgments of this court, or of both the lower courts in these proceedings. Dismissed.