AMRIK SINGH Vs. BALA JI RICE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the order dated 8.3.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Divison) Shahajahanpur in O. S. no. 222 of 2013, whereby instead of granting exparte ad interim, notices have been issued to the defendants-respondents. The impugned order reads as under:

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that through the impugned order the learned trial court without discussing the facts of the case and evidence adduced by the plaintiff has declined to grant ad interim injunction, so it has grossly erred in not granting exparte ad interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants-respondents.

(3.) At the very outset we requested the learned counsel for the appellant to address the Court about maintainability of the appeal. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of H. Bevis and Co. Vs. Ram Behari and others, 1951 AIR(All) 8. We have carefully perused the report of this case and find that it does not at all support the contention of the appellant. In this case there was difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges of the division bench of this Court on the issue of maintainability of the appeal against the order issuing notices to defendants on application for ad interim injunction and the matter was referred to third Hon'ble Judge, who took the view that order refusing to issue an ad interim injunction as allowed by Rule 3 of Order 39 of Code of Civil Procedure is not appeal able. Thus, by majority view it was held that appeal against the aforesaid order is not maintainable. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court treated the appeal as civil revision and ad interim injunction order was granted.