RAMNARAIN Vs. SHRIKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances giving rise to this revision -petition are that the non -applicants Shrikrishna and Govindrao filed a suit against Mathura Prasad in the Court of Civil Judge First Class Bhelsa for the specific performance of an agreement for the grant of a lease of a cinema house. The trial Court gave to the Plaintiffs a decree directing Mathura Prasad to execute a lease in favour of the Plaintiffs of the cinema house for a period of six years from 1 -1 -1952 to 31 -12 -1957 on a monthly rent of Rs. 175 and to pay to the Plaintiffs Rs. 500 as damages for his failure to lease out the cinema house to them for the previous five years.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Swami Saran learned Counsel for the applicant. In my judgment this revision petition is devoid of any substance and must be dismissed. I have already held in - 'Hariram v. Mohanlal' Madh -BLJ, 1953 1 ICR 1151 (A), and in - 'Jaswant Singh v. Sura' Madh -BLJ, 1954 HCR 399 (B), that no order of injunction can be made under Order 39 Rule 1 or Rule 2 or under Section 151 to restrain a decree -holder from executing a decree in his - favour so long as the decree stands and that merely because the Plaintiff has brought an action for setting aside the decree and that ho hopes to succeed in the suit, it cannot be held that the execution of the decree would amount to an injury.