PRABANDHAK SAMITI C. B. R. I. JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, ROORKEE AND ANOTHER Vs. CIVIL JUDGE, ROORKEE, SAHARANPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed against the order granting an ad interim injunction in the suit. The injunction order was upheld in appeal and, therefore, the appellate court's order has also been challenged A revision was filed. The petition has been delayed due to the dismissal of revision as not maintainable. After looking to the proceedings which were held, hold that the petitioner is not guilty of laches.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has .argued that in the present case an order has been granted directing the petitioner to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs. 516 p. m. during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiff has been directed to furnish adequate acuity for re curing the interest of the defendants. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the injunction granted by impugned order amounted to stay of the suspension order passed against the plaintiff-respondent. Under Order 39 Rule (2) proviso (b) of Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in its application to N. P., it is specifically provided that no injunction order could be granted to. stay the operation of suspension. From the order in question it does not appear that the defendant has been directed to take word from the plaintiff respondent and revoke the order of suspension. The direction is to make payment to plaintiff respondent for the time being in order to payment an irreparable injury to the plaintiff. There is no order either staying the order of suspension of-directing the defendant to take work from the plaintiff. The injunction relating to salary salary is not prohibited by the aforesaid provision.

(3.) The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, same force. By annexure to the petition an injunction offer has been granted by Munsiff restring the defendant from terminating the service of the plaintiff till further orders. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no such injunction could be granted in view of the fact that the power of grant an injunction, staying dismissal, removal or otherwise termination of service was also taken away from the civil court under.Clause (b) of Rule 2 of Order 39, seems to be correct. But do hot find any such argument before the lower appellate court, that the trial court thus no jurisdiction to restrain the defendant from terminating such service.