DHARAMCHAND NAHAR Vs. KANTILAL CHANDAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents 1, 3, 7, 12 and 15 in I.A.No.1659 of 1984 in O.S.No.2256 of 1981 on the file of learned I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants herein. THE present respondent-plaintiff instituted the said suit for dissolution and accounts of the firm "Transworld" and for other reliefs. That suit was originally instituted in 1973, transferred to High Court and again re-transferred to City Civil Court. On 18.1.1984, it was dismissed for default in the City Civil Court. THEreupon, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1658 and 1659 of 1984. THE first application is one under O.9, Rule 9, C.P.C, to restore the suit to file. THE next application is under O.39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, to restrain the present appellants from in any manner dealing with the properly bearing No.13, Venkatanarayana Road, Madras 17 either by way of lease or mortgage or any other manner of alienation by way of settlement,.gifts etc or demolishing the building pending disposal of the application to restore the suit dismissed for default. THE appellants resisted that application. While dismissing that application, learned I Additional Judge, directed the present appellants to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.1,50,000 to protect the interest of the plaintiff pending disposal of the suit within two weeks from that date and directed that till then the appellants herein should not in any way deal with the property as indicated earlier. And this appeal is directed against the said order.

(2.) MR.Himmatmal Mardia, learned counsel for the appellants first submitted that the impugned order is not valid on the face of it, A perusal of the petition in I.A.No.1659 of 1984 would indicate that the inj unction prayed for there in was to enure only during the pendency of I.A.No.1658 of 1984 which was for the restoration of the suit dismissed for default. There is no dispute that the suit has already been restored to file. While so it is evident that any injunction order passed in I.A.No. 1659 of 1984 came to an end the moment the other petition was allowed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel next argued that the essential pre requisite for the issuance of an injunction order under O.39, rule 1, C.P.C., is cither the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree or the defendant threatens to dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors. From this it follows that the property in respect of which injunction is sought for must be a property in dispute in that particular action. Here, the suit is one for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts. The property in respect of which the impugned order has been passed has nothing to do with the relief prayed for in the suit.