MOHAMMED FELUMEAH Vs. S MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is directed against an order of our learned brother Sinha, J. , modifying an ad interim injunction issued by Bose, J. , when issuing a Rule Nisi (Civil Rule No. 858 of 1959) for certain writs in the nature of Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition, etc. , specified therein. The appellant before us was the petitioner in the aforesaid Rule and he obtained the same, calling upon the respondents to show cause why the writs aforesaid should not issue and, pending the hearing of the Rule, he also obtained an ad interim injunction, restraining the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 from, inter alia, granting any license to respondent No. 5 (for his cinema) on C. S. Plot No. 5971, pending the disposal of the Rule.

(2.) TO the aforesaid Rule affidavits-in-opposition were filed by ' respondents Nos. , 2 and 8 and respondent No. 4 on May 23 and June 4, 11959. respectively, and two affidavits -in -reply were also filed by and/or cm behalf of the appellant on June 29, and July , 11959. In the meantime, on June , 95s, respondent No. 5 had applied for vacating the interim order of injunction and, to that application, there was an affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the appellant on June 8, 1959. and, to that, again, there was a reply by and on behalf of the applicant, respondent No. 5, on June 19. 1959.

(3.) THE above application was, eventually, allowed in part by Sinha, J. , and he varied and modified the interim injunction, issued by Bose, J. , by directing that the said injunction would be "dissolved excepting this that no permanent license shall be granted to opposite party No. 5 until the disposal of the Rule but a temporary license may be granted" and excepting further that "the status quo" should "be maintained with regard to the constructions, that is to say, there will be no further construction either with regard to the cinema or with regard to the mosque till the disposal of the Rule. " Sinha, J. , further directed that the necessary or the usual affidavits should be completed within three weeks and he also gave the parties express "liberty to mention for an early date of hearing" of the Rule. Against the above modification, or. more precisely, against the permission, given by Sinha, J. , as aforesaid for grant of "temporary license", the present appeal has been from the petitioner-appellant and he seeks restoration of the original interim order of Bose, J. , in that behalf.