ANANT SHRI SUKHRAMJI TRUST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 25-2-1995 passed by Shri Gheesa Lal Chaudhary, RHJS, Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in C.A.O. No. 12/95 allowing the same against the order dated 18-1-1995 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 wits rejected relating to Civil Original Suit No. 69/94 filed by the plaintiffs respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) The material facts to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that respondents 1 and 2 advertised the requirement of a building to install a telephone exchange at Berai. The village Berai consists of 900 houses out of 300 families are residing in the dhanies. It appears that the petitioners contacted the Jodhpur Office of the Telecommunication District Manager, Deptt. of Telecommunication, Shastri Circle, Jodhpur for installing the telephone exchange at Ram Choki. The residents of village Berai felt aggrieved by the contemplated installation of the telephone exchange at Ram Choki and they resisted the move. However, when they found that proceedings were going on for installing the telephone exchange at Ram Choki, Babulal and Balaram filed a representative suit against the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as also against the petitioners before the learned Munsif for permanent injunction restraining non-petitioners 1 and 2 from installing the proposed telephone exchange at village Berai. They also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. After hearing the parties the learned Munsif by his order dated 18-11995 dismissed the application of the plaintiffs for granting temporary injunction. The appellants Babulal and Balaram, therefore, preferred the appeal before the learned Addl. Distt. Judge who disposed of the same by his judgment dated 25-2-1995. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Appellate Court shows that the learned Appellate Court in para 8 of the judgment found non-compliance of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8. Section 80(2), C.P.C. as also Section 90, C.P.C. After pointing the above defects instead of dismissing the application, the learned Appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court, but, at the same time ordered for maintaining the status quo.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the non-petitioners.