PANKAJ KUMAR BISHNOI Vs. URMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 4-5-79 passed by the Civil Judge, Moradabad.

(2.) THE relevant facts are briefly these. In April 1979 the applicant filed an application for permission to sue as an indigent person. He alleged that he had 1/2 share in three houses, three Bank Accounts and ornaments lying in a locker in a Bank, besides agricultural property. THE three Bank accounts had about Rs. 55,000/-in deposit. While the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was still pending, the applicant moved an application for issue of interim injunction order praying that the defendants be restrained from withdrawing and the Banks concerned be restrained from allowing withdrawal of the bank deposits and the ornaments till disposal of the suit.

(3.) THOUGH the Civil Judge did not say it in so many words, his observation that withdrawal of the amounts could be stayed if the applicant paid the court fee first, indicates that he was under the impression that the application for issue of interim injunction order was not maintainable, until the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was decided and the applicant was permitted to sue as such or paid the court fee. The Civil Judge no doubt observed that the defendants would suffer irreparable loss and would be put to inconvenience if the injunction order was passed against them. In my view, these observations were made in the passing and cannot, therefore, be taken to mean that the Civil Judge had disposed of the injunction application on merits. One thing noticeable in this connection is that the Civil Judge did not address himself to the important question whether the applicant had a prima-facie case for issue of interim injunction order.