MASHKOOR HASAN KHAN AND ORS. Vs. ZILA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal on behalf of the Plaintiff -Appellants is directed against the order dated 2 -4 -1977 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar dismissing the Plaintiffs' application for an ad interim injunction restraining the Respondent Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar from auctioning the right to collect the remains of dead animals to any persons other than the Plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit. The suit itself was filed on the allegations that auctions with respect to collect the remains of dead animals were held at different block head quarters of the Nyaya Panchayat concerned within which the village in question fell. The rights were auctioned to the bidder whose bid was the highest. Thereafter, however, the Plaintiffs approached the Adhyaksha, Zila Parishad and made an offer of a higher amount of bid which, it is alleged, was accepted and the Plaintiffs were asked to make certain deposits. It is on the basis of those deposits that the Plaintiffs filed Suit No. 91 of 1977 for a permanent injunction. An application was made by the Plaintiffs in the suit praying for an interim injunction restraining the Defendant Zila Parishad from auctioning the right to collect the remains of dead animals to any persons other than the Plaintiffs. The said application was rejected by the impugned order and hence this appeal.

(2.) IT may be noted that the actual bidders or the persons in whose favour the rights have now been granted by the Zila Parishad were not impleaded as parties to the suit nor in the application for an interim injunction made in the suit. They are not impleaded in this appeal either. In the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the Zila Parishad it has been stated that written contracts had already been entered into by the Zila Parishad for collection of carcass, bones and hides etc. with third Parties who are not parties to the suit or to this appeal. It is thus obvious that in case any injunction is granted it will adversely affect the interest of third parties who are not present before this Court. In these circumstances the application for any interim injunction was not in fact maintainable and it was not necessary for the court below to go into the merits of the application. Accordingly we do not consider it necessary to enter into the merits of the appeal. However, the application for interim injunction is liable to be rejected for the reasons indicated above.