LAJJA RAM Vs. HARKARAN SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Harkaran Singh instituted a civil suit claiming declaration to the effect that on the suit property he had been inducted as a tenant by Jiwan Ram and Suraj Mal mortgagees thereof by way of act of good management and that he was not liable to be dispossessed in pursuance of the redemption order of the Collector dated 9.2.1982 at the instance of Lajja Ram mortgagor petitioner herein. Harkaran Singh (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) sought temporary injunction in terms of Order 39 rule 1 sub -clause (c) C.P.C. restraining Lajja Ram (hereinafter referred to as the owner of the suit land) from dispossessing him from the suit land The trial Court after granting ex parte order finally declined the prayer Plaintiff successfully challenged that order in appeal. The appellate Court held that the plaintiff had a prima facie case in his favour; that the balance of convenience was in maintaining status quo and that the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss in the event of the refusal of the temporary injunction prayed for. On behalf of the petitioner reliance is placed on a single Bench decision of this Court reported as Pishora Singh v. Smt. Lajo Bai : (1975) 77 P.L.R. 30, and on the strength of this decision it has been urged that an injury which could be compensated in terms of money could not be considered to be an irreparable injury and that in the present case the plaintiff if dispossessed could be compensated by payment of compensation.

(2.) THE ratio of the aforesaid judgment, it appears is no longer a good law in view of the amendment of Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. by the addition of fresh clause (c) to the said sub -rule which reads: - -

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the order of the appellate Court, I am of the opinion that the order of the appellate Court cannot be faulted on any score much less on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or of material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction.