J SAMBAMURTHY Vs. CH SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question as to how far a defendant in a suit can obtain a temporary injunction against the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 1, read with Section 151, C.P.C.

(2.) The earlier decision of Chinnappa Reddy, J., (as he then was in D. Rama Naidu vs. D.C. Venkata Subba Naidu #1 falls to be further explained in the context of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 C.P.C.

(3.) I shall briefly refer to the facts. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Pending the suit the appellants filed I.A.No. 141/84 for grant of temporary injunction in their favour and for restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession. That application was dismissed by the trial Court on 13-6-1984 and an appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed in C.M.A.No. 1108/84 on 30-7-1987. Thereafter the defendants filed the present I.A.No. 8/86 for grant of temporary injunction against the plaintiffs. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a counter contending that the present application at the instance of the defendants was not maintainable. It was also stated that the plaintiffs are in possession. From the order of the Lower Court, it appears primarily that the question of maintainability of the defendants' application was considered and not any other question. The learned counsel for the appelants-plaintiffs has however produced a large numberr of pabanis and cist receipts which according to him were not filed in the earlier LA.No. 141/84. It was explained that they were not filed by the appellants' counsel even in the present I.A.No. 8/86 inasmuch as the counsel understood that the question of maintainability of the said application filed by the defendants, was alone being considered, it is argued that the appellants are entitled to rely on these pahanis and cist receipts even if the I.A.No. 8/86 filed by the defendants is held to be maintainable.