ERIC CAMP Vs. CHRIST CHURCH COUNCIL MORAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by plaintiff-applicant against order dated 31-8-1979 whereby order passed by trial Court on 11-10-1977 rejecting his application under Order 39, Rule 2 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking action in disobedience against the defendant-non-applicant No. 2 for breach of ex-parte interim injunction dated 11-10-1977 was dismissed.

(2.) FACTS material for decision of the revision are as under:-That the plaintiff-applicant on 11-10-1976 instituted a suit for declaration that order of his dismissal from service dated 13-9-1976 passed by Secretary of the defendant-Council is null and void. The plaintiff further prayed for an order restraining the defendant from removing the plaintiff from service without due enquiry on cause of action detailed in the plaint. In the suit, the plaintiff submitted an application for issuance of an interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code for restraining the defendants from removing the plaintiff from service either with effect from 15-10-1976 or from any other date and to permit him to do his work as before and continue to give him the amenities which he was already enjoying. After hearing the plaintiff, the trial Court by order dated 11-10-1976, ordered issuance of ex parte interim injunction to the effect that: (a) the defendant should not remove the plaintiff from service on 15-10-1976 or thereafter; (b) that the plaintiff should be permitted to do his work as before and (c) that the defendant should go on giving the plaintiff those amenities which he was enjoying. A show cause notice was issued to the defendants to show cause as to why the injunction prayed for by the plaintiff should not be confirmed. After putting in their appearance, the defendants opposed the grant of interim injunction and on merits of the suit took objection with regard to its maintainability and competency of the Court to entertain the suit. The plaintiff submitted an application under Order 39, rule 2 (3), Civil Procedure Code. Complaining that the defendant-non-applicant No. 2 has disobeyed the interim injunction, inasmuch as he is not permitting him (the plaintiff) to do his work on the post of Church bearer and has passed an order dated 24-10-1976, preventing him from doing any duty for the church. This application was opposed by the defendant-non-applicant No. 2 A. I. George, inter alia on the ground that the grant of interim injunction was without jurisdiction and that the defendant is not guilty of any disobedience either. This ex parte interim injunction continued till 15-7-1977 when the trial Court heard objections raised by the defendant about maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the Courts to take cognizance thereof. After hearing parties, by its judgment dated 15-7-1977, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, because, in essence, it is for a specific performance of contract relating to personal services. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred appeal (Civil Appeal No. 149-A of 1977 ). During pendency of the appeal, plaintiff submitted an application for amendment of plaint to claim in the alternative damages consequential to his illegal dismissal from service. This amendment was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for trial of the suit in the light of the aforesaid amendment. However, the claim of the plaintiff in respect of declaration that he should be deemed to continue in his service, remained dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the defendants preferred an appeal (M. A. (II) No. 48 /78) which was partly allowed by this Court by order dated 28-8-78, inasmuch as amendment pertaining to the plaintiff being regarded as Government servant and the defendant-council being regarded as Government body was disallowed. The remaining part of the order allowing amendment was maintained. Thus, decree regarding dismissal of the claim of the plaintiff regarding declaration that on account of alleged invalidity of the order of his removal from service he should be deemed to be in service of the defendant-council, attained finality. The lis is now pending only for the purpose of entitlement of the plaintiff to damages in consequence of his alleged illegal removal.

(3.) THE application for disobedience of the ex parte interim injunction submitted by the plaintiff was taken up by the trial Court for consideration and after hearing arguments, it was rejected by the trial Court on 11-10-1977. Aggrieved by this order, plaintiff preferred an appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this revision.