RAGHUBAR DAYAL MISRA Vs. SHANKAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances in which this application in revision has arisen sue briefly as follows : The plaintiff-opposite-party had been the chairman of the Municipal Board of Sikandrabad, but he had been removed from that office by the Local Government on 17 October 1933. He thereupon brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif for an injunction against the members of the Board to prevent them from holding an election for electing another chairman. It has been made clear to the Court, that the plaintiff's object was also to obtain a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's removal from the chairmanship was in. valid. After removing the plaintiff from the chairmanship, the Local Government directed the members of the Board to fix a date for electing a new chairman, and the plaintiff therefore applied to the Munisif's Court for a temporary injunction against those members directing them not to hold an election, and not to elect; a new chairman. The Munsif issued a temporary injunction, and an appeal against his order has been dismissed by the District Judge of Bulandshahr,

(2.) It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the issue of this temporary injunction was ultra vires and without jurisdiction. Mr. Sinha first attempted to establish that under 01. (d) of Section 56, Specific Belief Act, no injunction can be granted to interfere with the public duties of any department of the Government of India or the Local Government, and this the effect of the Munsif's order was so to interfere. That section however relates to permanent injunctions, and cannot be made directly to apply to a temporary injunction like the present one, which is governed by the provisions of Order 39, Schedule 1, Civil P.C. Section 56 is one of the sections of Ch. 10 of the Act which in terms applies to perpetual injunctions, and if there were any doubt on the point, it has been settled by a decision in the case of District Board of Farrukhabad V/s. Ikhlaque Husain 1933 All 862. It has however been held that if the relief which the plaintiff seeks cannot be granted, no temporary injunction can be issued by the Court : see the cases of Mulji Haridag v. Ibrahim Kahimtulla 1932 Bom. 166 and 1923 Bishan Prasad Pathak V/s. Sashi Bhushan Misra 1923 Pat. 133. The plaintiff in the present case asked for a perpetual injunction and as a perpetual injunction could not be granted under the provisions of Section 56, Specific Belief Act, it would follow from this authority that a temporary injunction could not be granted under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 2, Civil P.C. Even if it be deemed that the plaintiff had sued not only for a perpetual injunction but for a declaration, it will according to the authority quoted equally follow that a temporary injunction cannot be granted by the Court where the relief sought by the plaintiff in the plaint is one that the Court will be unable to grant.

(3.) Mr. Agarwala has argued for the opposite-party that even if Clause (d), Section 56, Specific Belief Act, were applied to a temporary injunction, yet in the present case there is nothing to show that the orders passed by the Munsif would interfere" with the public duties of any department of the Government of India or the Local Government.