ABDUL SATHAR Vs. PLAANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is fourth defendant in O.S.No.701 of 1994 in the Court of the District Munsif, Karur. First respondent/ plaintiff instituted that suit for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner and others from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property. Along with the suit he filed I.A.No.657 of 1994 under O.39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and sought for a temporary injunction till the disposal ofthe suit. THE revision petitioner entered appearance through his counsel on 18.8.1994 and sought time to file his counter. On the same day notice was ordered to the other defendants/ respondents and the revision petitioner was directed to file his counter by 26.8.1994. THE court also ordered both parties to maintain status quo till then. And this order is assailed by the fourth defendant in the present revision petition by invoking Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) UNDER O.43, Rule 1, Clause (r), an order under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of 0.39 is an appealable one. While a remedy against impugned order is expressly provided for in C.P.C. evidently the provisions of Art.227 cannot be invoked in the absence of any special circumstance. A learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to my notice any fact peculiar to the present case which warrants interference under-Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The grounds mentioned in the civil revision petition are only to the effect that plaintiff has failed to establish prima facie case for grant of an order of status quo. And the court has also failed to state what the status quo is. Before passing of orders no opportunity wasgiven to the present petitioner to file his objections. Needless to add that these grounds are to be raised even in an appeal.

(3.) IN Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Piyush Aggarwal, A.I.R. 1994 Del. 186, the impugned order was passed on the last working day, whereafter the civil courts closed for winter vacation and the respondent had no opportunity to move the trial court under O.39, Rule 4, C.P.C. or could prefer an appeal earlier. He in that situation, that the court can exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.227 as the act of trial court amounted to exercising the jurisdiction improperly.