KIRAT SINGH Vs. MADHO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs sued for the cancellation of a gift deed on ground of fraud. The Defendant made an application that the Plaintiff be restrained from interfering with his possession during the pendency of the suit. The trial court granted such an injunction. The lower appellate court held to the contrary and vacated it. The Plaintiff went up in revision. The learned Additional District Judge held that the trial court has granted an injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an order was not appealable. It, therefore, allowed the revision and set aside the appellate order. The Plaintiff has now come up in revision.

(2.) IT is doubtful whether a revision lies to this Court against an order passed by the court below under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court can exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a fit case for the exercise of this jurisdiction. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff was interfering with his possession of the property in dispute; and, therefore, the Plaintiff should be restrained by an injunction. Clause (a) of Order XXXIX Rule 1 authorises the court to issue a temporary injunction to any party to the suit but only in a case where the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party. In other words, the court has no jurisdiction to restrain the Plaintiff at the instance of the Defendant. In such a situation a temporary injunction can be issued only against the Defendant: There is no finding that the property in dispute was in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not confer any additional jurisdiction on the courts. If a particular order is outside the purview of the express provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, such a situation cannot be tackled under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.