JHAMKU Vs. IEED MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JURISPRUDENCE must move with the changing society for the effective implementation of law and justice. Judge should not only take note of the voice coming from the graves, but, should hear the voices coming from the living persons of the society. The mounting arrears of cases is a signal to the present system and particularly to those persons who are delivering the justice or who are assisting in the delivery of justice that the present system will collapse if the Judges fail to read the writings on the wall. Frivolous litigation is increasing and one of the causes may be the system of dispensation of justice. Judge is expected to be innovative, renovative and should also be prepared to change the rule within the premises of law. I should not be mis- understood when I use the word renovative and innovative as I have qualified them with the word within the "premises" of law. Judge cannot violate the law and Judge has to abide by the law, but, at the same time, the Judge has to interpret and apply the law looking to the needs of the society and should not base his common sense which may be very uncommon today if it is solely based on the voices coming from the graves.-

(2.) UNDER Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. and the Specific Relief Act, there is a power to grant injunction, may be a temporary injunction or permanent injunction. This Court has already held in the case of Nazir Ahmad and others v. Ashfag Ali (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 239/89), decided on 17. 10. 89, that the Court has a power to issue a mandamous by way of temporary injunction and to restore the possession in extra-ordinary cases, though, it may be rare amongst the rarest to a position which existed prior to the filing of the suit. The judgement of this Court has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the S. L. P. has been rejected.

(3.) REVISION petition is disposed of accordingly. .