DATLA CHINA APPALANARASIMHA RAJU Vs. NADIMPALLI SEETHAYAMMA GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question has been referred to the Full Bench: "What is the scope of Sub-rule (c) of Order XXXIX, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure ?" The facts which have given me to this reference may be briefly stated. In execution of the decree obtained by him in O.S. No. 28 of 1933, on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam, the appellant purchased two items of property subject to the rights of the Rani of Jaipur. The appellant applied for delivery of possession of those items. When notice of this application was given to the Rani, she stated that she had made a gift of them to the respondents and that therefore, she had no longer any subsisting interest in them. The Court directed delivery of the aforesaid items to the appellant. Thereupon the respondents filed O.S. No. 9 of 1955 on the file of the District Court, Visakhapatnam, for a declaration of their title in respect of the said items and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of those items. This suit was eventually dismissed and against the decree of dismissal, the plaintiffs have preferred an appeal in this Court. Pending the appeal, they filed CMP. No. 3885 of 1956 for a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of the items. Our learned brother Mr. Justice Bhima-sankaram, granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from obtaining delivery of items I and 3, subject to certain conditions. Against this order the appellant preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) When this appeal came on for hearing before the Referring Bench, it was contended by the appellant that the application fora temporary injunction to restrain Mm from taking delivery of possession of the items in question, was not maintainable in view of the Division Bench decision in Venkanna v. Venkata Rao, 1957 ALT 90 (AIR 1957 Andh Pra 453), which held that the words cause injury or loss to the plaintiff in Clause (c) of Order 39, Rule 1, introduced by the Andhra High Court, would not take in the case of a decree-holder who seeks to execute the decree obtained by him.

(3.) Now, an injunction is defined in Halsburys Laws as a judicial process whereby a party is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing. The law relating to injunctions is contained in Sections. 52 to 57 of the Specific Relief Act and Order 39, Rule. 1 to 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions of the Specific Relief Act deal with permanent injunctions and those of the Civil Procedure Code regulate the grant of temporary injunctions.