UNION OF INDIA Vs. YASHWANT AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of an Order Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC' hereinafter), granted by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. The claim in the suit is rather unusual. The non-applicant - plaintiff is a telephone subscriber. On a general change of telephone numbers in the locality, his original telephone number 25656 was changed to 529656. According to the plaintiff if the common pattern of change of numbers had been followed he would have got 525656 as the changed number and not 529656. The plaintiff also alleges that he was not given the number 525656 malafidely only to benefit one of the defendants who was given that number. A temporary injunction was claimed directing the Union of India and its Telecommunication Department to allot telephone number 525656 to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the lower courts have dealt with the matter as if it was being decided finally and granted the final relief to the plaintiff ignoring the principles on which a temporary mandatory injunction could be granted. According to the learned counsel the claim in suit was based on conjecture and surmises and not on a specific legal right. THE case of the plaintiff was presumptuous and both the lower courts had fallen pray to the baseless hypothesis that the plaintiff had a vested right to allotment of a particular number despite a clear provision in Rule 418 of the Telegraph Rules (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter ). According to the learned counsel there was neither a primafacie case, nor the balance of convenience was in favour of plaintiff and there was no question of irreparable injury being suffered by the plaintiff because of non allotment of a particular number while changing the numbers.

(3.) THE appellate court has not at all addressed itself to the question of any irreparable injury likely to be caused to the plaintiff and the trial court got rid of the point by simply observing that the plaintiff would suffer more irreparable injury than defendant No. 2 as if just like convenience, irreparable injury was also to be compared. THE approach again was totally wrong.