BAL KISHAN Vs. DEVKI NANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Gurgaon dated 2.4.1990 whereby the order of the trial Court declining ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff was set aside and the defendant was restrained from ousting the plaintiff from the house in dispute in execution of the decree obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff, Devki Nandan, filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is the tenant in the premises in dispute and, therefore, could not be ejected in execution of the decree passed by the civil Court in favour of the defendant, Bal Kishan. The said application was contested on behalf of the defendant. The trial Court found that the present suit is a blatant misuse of the process of law. The plaintiff has no prima facie case and was not entitled to any ad interim injunction. Moreover, the plaintiff, Devki Nandan, never challenged the decree passed against him on 6.4.1989. Consequently, ad interim injunction was declined. In appeal, the learned District Judge found that prima facie the civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree of ejectment against the tenant and, therefore, it was nullity which the plaintiff was within his rights to gloss it over. Consequently, ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from ousting the plaintiff was granted.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no interim injunction could be issued against the defendant restraining him as not to execute the decree passed by the civil Court in his favour against the plaintiff-tenant, Bal Kishan. Admittedly, Bal Kishan never filed an appeal against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, on 6.4.1989. The same has become final between the parties. Whether the said decree is executable or not, cannot be decided in the suit. Such an objection, if any, may be available to plaintiff in execution proceedings. Thus on the facts and circumstances of the case, no ad interim injunction could be issued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The learned District Judge has thus acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the order of the District Judge is set aside and that of the trial Court declining ad interim injunction is restored with costs. Petition accepted.