BHIKHANI DEVI Vs. AMAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three defendants are the petitioners before this Court and this revision application has been filed against the appellate order by which the order of the trial Court has been reversed in an injunction matter. The trial Court had refused interim injunction. The appellate Court has granted injunction in a very peculiar form. The opposite party is the plaintiff who had appealed against refusal of injunction. Shri S. S. Dwivedi. learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of defendants-petitioners and Shri S. K. Majumdar, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of plaintiff-opposite party. Heard the parties.

(2.) The plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 487 of 1999 in the Court of Sub Judge I, the plaint whereof is Annexure 1. The relief claimed was for a direction to the defendants to repair the shop failing which permit the plaintiff to repair the shop and further to injunct the defendants from letting out the shop to another. On the face of it, there was apparent contradiction. If the prayer was for the repair of the shop. It presupposes the plaintiffs possession. If the prayer was for injuncting the defendants from letting out the shop to another, it presupposes the plaintiff was not in possession. However, this need not detain this Court at this moment. In course of the proceedings, an injunction application was filed with a prayer that the plaintiff be put in possession and the shop be repaired. The trial Court rightly rejected the prayer on the simple ground that by way of interim relief, the final relief cannot be granted.

(3.) The matter was then taken by the plaintiff to the appellate Court. I need not go through the lengthy order of the appellate Court for the simple reason that after reversing the order of the trial Court refusing injunction, the appellate Court has ordered thus :