ORIENT FOODS Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BHADOHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Mr. P. S. Baghel. learned counsel for the pretitioners. It appears that no prejuclce would be caused to the opposite parties if this petition is disposed of here and now In the following manner :

(2.) In the present case, in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). Bhadohi, Gyanpur, had Issued notices under Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of the Code observing that sufficient ground has not been made out for the grant of ad interim injunction, This order was passed in Original Suit No. 119 of 1999 on 6th August. 1999. A Civil Appeal No. Nil of 1999 was preferred against the said order. By an order dated 17th August. 1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhadohi, in the said appeal, the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the decision in the case of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha v. Man Mohan Tiwari, 1993 (2) ARC 278.

(3.) Mr. P. S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned District Judge had relied on a decision which was earlier in point of time over-looking the Judgment In the case of Israt and another v. District Judge, Saharanpur and others. 1999 (2) ARC 74, which is a latter Judgment of a coordinate bench. According to him, in view of the decisions in the case of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. State Transport Appellate (Tribunal), U. P., Lucknow and others. AIR 1977 All 1 and in the case of Smt. Indtra Pathak v. Una Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others, 1989 AWC 281, If there are conflicting Judgments of coordinate benches, then the lower courts are bound to follow the latter judgment of the coordinate bench, which is binding on It. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable, cannot be sustained.