BHUMA VENKATA SESHAYYA Vs. BHUMA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal brought by the judgment-creditor in O. S. 151 of 1956 against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada granting a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from proceeding further with the execution of his decree, raises a question bearing on Order 39 Rule 1 C. P. C. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and are not in dsipute.

(2.) In execution of a decree obtained by the appellant on the foot of a promissory note in O. S. No. 151 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Vijayawada against the father of respondents 1 to 3, who was the manager of their joint family, the joint family properties of these respondents were brought to sale on 6-7-1957 and were purchased by the 4th respondent. Before the sale could be confirmed, respondents 1 to 3 instituted O. P. No. 46 of 1957 for permission to file a suit in forma pauperis for a declaration, inter alia, that the decree resulting in the sale as also another decree were not binding on them and for partitioning the B schedule properties into four equal shares and to put them in separate possession of their shares. Pending the petition they sought a temporary injunction preventing the 4th respondent from proceeding further with the execution of the decree in E. P. No. 202 of 1957. An interim injunction was granted and this was made absolute subsequently in spite of the opposition of the appellant, Aggrieved by this order, the execution creditor has brought this appeal.

(3.) It is urged in support of this appeal by Sri C. V. Narasimha Rao that a temporary injunction could not issue in this case as it does not fall within the terms of Order 39. On the other hand, the counsel for the 4th respondent maintains that this case is governed by Order 39 Rule 1 (c) as the further execution of the decree would cause injury or loss to the plaintiff within the scope of clause (c) of Rule 1 of Order 39. It now falls to be decided whether the confirmation of the sale in this case would constitute an injury within the mischief of clause (c).