RAMESHWAR DASS Vs. BICHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit of the petitioner was dismissed in default of hearing. He made an application for restoration of the same. During the pendency of that application, he made a prayer that temporary injunction in his favour be issued restraining the other party to interfere with his possession. The learned trial Court dismissed this application on the ground that Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code applied only to suits and not to applications. The learned lower appellate Court also took a similar view.

(2.) In this petition, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, that even if Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, were not applicable, nothing debarred the learned Courts below to consider the question of grant of ad interim injunction in exercise of their power under Section 151 of the Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the amended Section 151 of the Code, the effect of which is almost the same. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Toor, learned counsel for the respondent, has brought to my notice that after the dismissal of the suit out of which the instant petition has arisen, the petitioner filed another suit which was also dismissed. He also states that the petitioner had been inducted by the respondent as a tenant and the Tehsildar had passed an order for recovery of rent from him. When questioned, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to admit or deny the order passed by the Tehsildar acting as Assistant Collector First Grade. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment to seek further instructions on the point argued by Mr. Toor. The case is accordingly adjourned to February 14, 1979 to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to make his submissions. No further adjournment for this purpose shall be granted.