MAHAVEER DASS Vs. GANESHMAL JEEVRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by Addl. Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur dated 177-89 whereby the application filed u/ S. 151 C.P.C. and an application pending u / Order 39 R. 1 C.P.C. and another application filed under O. 8 R. 9 C.P.C. for grant of Temporary Injunction have been rejected.

(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are that Shri Mahaveer Dass filed a suit for arrear of rent and ejectment against M/s. Ganeshmal Jeev Raj. It was alleged in that suit that the plaintiff has not paid the rent and at the same time he has sublet the premises to somebody else and, therefore, suit for ejectment of the tenant from the suit premises should be decreed. The ejectment was also claimed on the basis of the bona fide necessity. During the pendency of the suit, it is alleged that the tenant started making certain constructions, additions and alterations in the said premises and, therefore, the plaintiff brought an application for grant of Temporary Injunction. Only after giving a notice to the defendant and after obtaining his reply an interim order of status quo was passed. The defendant took the plea that Commissioner, Devasthan is a necessary party in the suit as also in this application. It was further averred that no temporary Injunction can be sought in a suit where no relief of permanent Injunction is claimed in the main suit. Firstly, the plaintiff wanted to file a rejoinder by filing an application under O.8, R. 9, C.P.C. and secondly it has moved an application for amendment of the suit to incorporate the relief that the defendant is making additions and alterations and is raising additional constructions in the suit premises, and, therefore, he should be permanently restrained from doing so. That application was however filed in the main suit in the application filed u/S. 151, C.P.C. pending for grant of Temporary Injunction. The Plaintiff applicant claimed that that application should be decided before this T.I. application is disposed of by the Court. These two applications came to be decided by the impugned order and hence this revision-petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. O.P. Mehta as also Mr. J. Gehlot appearing for both the parties.