ANIL KUMAR Vs. HARBANS LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated April 21, 1998 passed by the learned Sub Judge, I -Class, Rampur whereby the application of the plaintiff7respbndent (here -after referred to as, the plaintiff) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners (here -after referred to as the defendants) from carrying out any further construction over the land in dispute, has been allowed.

(2.) Preliminary objection about the maintainable of this revision petition has been raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the remedy available to the defendants was to prefer an appeal before the concerned District Judge and the revision petition is not maintainable.

(3.) While replying to the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the defendants has contended mat the suit was initially presented in the Court of the concerned District Judge in the absence of the Sub Judge concerned and the former had passed an interim injunction in the matter, therefore, having applied his mind to the controversy between the parties and having passed the interim injunction, the appeal would not lie to the District Judge on the well accepted principle that "appeal would not lie from Caesar to Caesar".