SAYED BASAR ALLI Vs. URMILA PATTANAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN this Writ Petition, Petitioners have assailed legality of Order Dated 26.4.2011 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Bhubaneswar in I.A. No. 113 of 2011, a proceeding under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arising out of RMC No. 610 of 2010, a proceeding under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of C.S. No. 507 of 2009 in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Bhubaneswar. Petitioners were Plaintiffs and Opp. Party was the Defendant in the suit.

(3.) CONSIDERING the rival submissions and upon perusal of the materials on record, it is observed that the Learned Court below could not have passed an order of injunction by invoking jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a proceeding for restoration of the suit. Suit is no more existence. This view finds support from the decision of Bombay High Court in Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Bombay v. Kamal Steel Corporation, Bombay and Ors., 2010 (1) CCC 99 (Bombay), wherein it has been held that once the main suit is disposed of the Court has no power to pass interim injunction.