MOHD FAROOQ Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION DIV SRINAGAR,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of District Judge, Srinagar. dated 16 -8 -1985, rejecting the appeal against the order of Judge Small Causes Court, Srinagar, dated 14 -5 -1985 whereby the plaintiff -petitioners application for grant of temporary injunction had been dismissed.

(2.) A suit for declaration and injunction along with an application for temporary injunction was instituted by the plaintiff -petitioner in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, Srinagar. The dispute relates to a piece of land situate at Gagribal, Srinagar, over which the defendants - respondents were constituting a 33 KV Electricity Receiving station. The plaintiff sought an injunction against the construction of the Receiving Station on various grounds, detailed in the plaint. It transpires that the suit was instituted without serving any notice u/s 80 C. P. C. The plaintiff -petitioner along with the main suit filed an application invoking the provisions of Sec, 80 C - P. C. as amended, with a prayer that the plaintiff petitioner be premitted to institute the suit against the state without issuance of notice under section 80 C P C. The suit was instituted on 8 -4 -1985. On the same day, the learned trial Judge relying upon the averments made in the plaint opined that the case was of ,an emergent nature" and permitted the plaintiff - petitioner to institute the suit against the defendant State without issuance of a prior notice under Sec. 80 C. P -C. Notice of the institution of the suit was issued to the defendants. Notice was also issued in the application filed by the plaintiff -petitioner seeking temporary injunction and the appointment of a receiver on the same day viz on 8 -4 -1985. Vide order of the court dated 8 - 4 -1985 the trial court granted the relief of appointment of a commissioner exparte and appointed Mr. Rafiq Ahmad Bazaz as a Commissioner. Being of the opinion that no interim relief could be granted in terms of the Amended provisions of Sec. 80 C. P. C. without hearing the State. Notice was issued to the defendants for filing objections against the grant of interim relief and the case was posted for 9 -4 1985. when the case was taken up on 9th April, 1985, the trial court inter -alia observed : -

(3.) THE arguments of Mr. Jan, though seemingly attractive do not bear close scrutiny. It would be profitable, at this stage, to first notice the relevant provisions of Sec. 80 C. P. C. as amended. That section provides as follows : -