RAM KUMAR Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICE is complete in the case.

(2.) THE plaintiff--respondents filed a suit for pre--emption of sale of land by one Sardhi in favour of the vendee--petitioners on two grounds, namely, (1) that the plaintiffs are the sons of the brother of the husband of the vendor and (2) that the plaintiffs are co--sharers in the suit--land. During the pendency of the suit the vendees applied to the revenue officer for partition of the suit--land. If partition is effected before the pre--emption suit is disposed of, the plaintiff--respondents would lose their character as co--sharers. To avoid the possibility of such a situation, the plaintiffs made an application to the trial Court under O. 39, R. 1 (c) of the Civil P. C. for restraining the vendee--respondents (petitioners before me) from continuing the partition proceedings. The application was allowed by the trial Court, and the appeal of the vendees having failed, they have come up for revision of the appellate order.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioners contends that no temporary injunction can be granted where there is no prayer by a party applying for the temporary injunction for the grant of any such permanent relief in the suit in which the temporary injunction is prayed for. The argument of the counsel is that if at the end of the suit no permanent injunction can be granted in terms of the temporary injunction or the relief claimed by way of temporary injunction cannot ultimately be granted at all in the suit in which the ad interim injunction is prayed for, no such injunction can be granted. In support of this proposition, counsel has referred to the judgment of Parkash Narain, J. in Raman Hosiery Factory, Delhi v. J. K. Synthetics Ltd. , AIR 1974 Delhi 207. The learned Judge has held that relief is granted as an interim measure till the disposal of the suit in which the validity of the claim or right that has been put forward by the party claiming the injunction has to be investigated. It has been held that if no such claim has been put forward in the suit it means that there can be no occasion for investigation of such a claim in the suit and there can be no justification for the grant of an interim relief which will just lapse on the termination of the suit, but which will leave the parties in the same position in which they were before the institution of the suit in the course of which the interim relief was sought and obtained. That, held Parkash Narain, J. , is not the scope of O. 39, R. 1.