SHIVPUJAN YADAV Vs. BISHNUDEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order 23.7.2008 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Garhwa in Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2007 whereby he has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Subordinate Judge-I, Garhwa in Title Suit No. 23 of 2007 rejecting prayer of the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and further granted temporary injunction.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff-respondent filed aforementioned suit before the Subordinate Judge, Garhwa for declaration of his right under the deed of reconstitution of partnership dated 11.2.2003 between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 13. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed written statement controverting the statements made in the plaint. The plaintiff, in the meantime, filed application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. and prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from executing the performance of the duty and further to restrain the defendant from withdrawing any amount. The said application was opposed by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties, rejected the application and refused to grant any injunction. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed appeal before the District Judge, Garhwa being Misc. Appeal No. 06 of 2007 which was eventually transferred to the Court of 1st Addl. District Judge, Garhwa. The appellate Court after hearing the parties reversed the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Garhwa and allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction in the manner prayed for by the plaintiff. Hence, this application challenging the order passed by the appellate Court.

(3.) Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendants, raised a preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal below. Learned Counsel submitted that admittedly suit was valued at Rs. 30 lacs and, therefore, the Court of Appeal below committed serious illegality in entertaining the appeal and passing the impugned order which is wholly without jurisdiction.