UNION OF INDIA Vs. BABY NARAIN BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India and others have preferred this revision petition against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, on the 8th March, 1969 whereby he accepted the appeal of Miss Baby Narain Bhatia and ordered the stay of the impugned order of her transfer.

(2.) Miss Baby Narain Bhatia respondent was working as a nurse 'B' grade at Rewari in Bikaner Division of the Northern Railway. She was transferred by the General Manager, Northern Railway, from Rewari to Ambala in Delhi Division, vide order dated the 25th September, 1978. On the 5th October, 1978 Miss I.V.Y. Massey was appointed in her place as Miss Bhatia did not receive the orders and absented herself. She was deemed to have relinquished charge on the 5th October, 1978 and Miss Massey was given the charge of this post on that day. On the 11th November, 1978 Miss Bhatia filed a suit in the Court of Shri A.S. Chalia, Senior Sub Judge, Narnaul, against the petitioners for a declaration that the orders of transfer were illegal and the same were ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff. She filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad interim injunction. The learned trial Court granted the ad interim injunction on the 13th November, 1978. The petitioner-defendants appeared in Court and made an application for the vacation of the above-mentioned injunction order. They pleaded that the plaintiff respondent had already been relieved of her post at Rewari on the 5th October, 1978 and that her successor had since joined there and was working, the trial Court vacated the ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiff-respondent, on the 18th January, 1979. Miss Bhatia, plaintiff-respondent, filed an appeal against this order. The same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, on the 8th March, 1979. The learned Judge set aside the order of the trial Court and stayed the operation of the transfer order. Dissatisfied with these orders, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Mr. R.L. Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the application by the plaintiff-respondent for issuance of a temporary injunction was not competent under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him, rule 1 was not applicable as the subject matter of the suit was not property. Rule 2 was also not attracted as the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was only for a declaration. It was not a suit for restraining the defendant-petitioners from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind. The necessary condition for the applicability of this rule was that the suit must be for an injunction. This rule did not apply to suits for declaration. In support of this plea, he cited Hulash Chand V. Goru and Others,1959 9 ILR(Raj) 1064and Peddinti Gopalacharyulu V. Rudra Veeranna and Others, 1955 AIR(AP) 142These judgments indeed support the plea of the learned counsel. On the other hand, Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent, has contended that this rule is applicable to all suits wherein a grievance is made of any type of injury, actual or threatened. It will be profitable to reproduce the relevant portion of rule 2 of Order XXXIX at this stage :-