NIRMALA DEVADOSS PRINCIPAL Vs. T PAULINE VICTORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge made in Application No. 2432 of 2007, whereby the order of interim injunction originally granted in Tr. C. S. No. 966 of 2001 was discharged.

(2.) THE facts which led the respondents/applicants to file the said application can be stated thus: the appellant herein filed O. S. No. 8559 of 1998 before the City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging an order of suspension, dated 21. 8. 1998. At the time of initiation of the suit, she filed I. A. No. 20630 of 1998 for injunction pendente lite not to interfere with the peaceful administration and running of the Gnanodhaya Teacher Training Institute by her as Principal. An interim order of injunction was originally granted. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant preferred C. M. A. No. 47 of 1999, which came up for consideration before the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, whereby the order of injunction was confirmed. The same was also taken up by way of revision before this Court in C. R. P. No. 3101 of 1999. On dismissal of the same, it was taken up before the Apex Court and the same was also dismissed. While the said suit was transferred to this court and taken on file as Tr. C. S. No. 966 of 2001, an another suit was filed by the applicants as plaintiffs against the appellant herein and 5 others in C. S. No. 553 of 1999 for a declaration that the defendants 1 to 6 are not entitled to claim or to act as members or office bearers of Gnanodhaya Teacher Training School Association and also for a declaration that the 6th defendant is not entitled to claim or act as the Correspondent of Gnanodhaya Teacher Training Institute and also for permanent injunction, in which interim injunction was granted against all the defendants therein. While the matter stood thus, the present application was filed by the defendants in Tr. C. S. No. 966 of 2001 for discharging the interim injunction originally granted and subsequently affirmed. On enquiry, the learned Single Judge had discharged the same. Hence this appeal.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, would submit that interim injunction originally granted in favour of the appellant was affirmed not only in appeal and revision, but the S. L. P. made at the instance of the respondents was also dismissed, whereby the injunction has been affirmed. The interim injunction was prayed for and granted till the disposal of the suit and the suit is yet pending. Under these circumstances, no question of discharge of interim injunction originally granted would arise. Even in the suit and also in the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was made clear that the respondents had no authority to pass an order of suspension and only after looking into that position, the court was convinced that the respondents have no authority to do so and prima facie found a case in favour of the appellant and has granted interim injunction. Under these circumstances, there is no occasion to discharge the interim injunction.