HANS RAJ Vs. JEET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit captioned Jeet Ram Versus Hans Raj is pending on the file of learned Munsiff, R.S. Pura. Alongside the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C) has been filed, which has been allowed vide detailed order 14th of May' 2010, in terms whereof parties have been directed to maintain status-quo vis-a-vis suit property. An appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jammu on 4th of February' 2011. Aggrieved thereof, the instant Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) After amendment i.e., substitution of Proviso to Section 115 C.P.C, the revisional powers have been curtailed and power is to be exercised at the behest of the revisionist only when the order, if would have been in favor of the revisionist, would result in termination of the suit proceedings. The application for injunction as disposed of in fact is an arrangement during the course of the trial of the suit. The appeal taken against such order is in continuation of the said suit proceedings so has to be termed to be an order during the course of the suit proceedings. If the order impugned would have been in favor of the petitioner, same would not result in final disposal of the suit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that an application for injunction as disposed of and then the appeal taken against such order and disposed of would mean termination of the proceedings in the application and then the appeal, therefore, the revision is maintainable. In support of his submission, relied upon the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled Darbari Lal & ors Vs. Madan Lal & ors., 2011 AIR(J&K) 153. But, it appears that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander & Ors., 2003 AIR(SCW) 3872has not been brought to the notice of the Court. It shall be quite relevant to quote Para no. 4 of the judgment F herein:-