G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether the revision petition as filed under Section 115 C. P. C. is maintainable.

( 2 ) THE petitioners who are some of the defendants in O. S. No. 3473 of 1989 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed the revision petition in the first instance under Article 227 of the constitution of India. The Registry of the High Court took an objection that the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Hence they converted it to one under Section 115 C. P. C.

( 3 ) THE brief facts with regard to the initiation of the proceedings and the orders passed thereon which are relevant factors for determining the maintainability of the revision petition are as follows ; the plaintiffs who are the members of the Syndicate Bank Officers association, filed a representative suit, with the prior permission of the court, for a declaration that some of the actions specified in the plaint are illegal and ultra vires and for a perpetual injunction and also for accounting. To safeguard the funds from devastation or flittering away the funds of the Association, the plaintiffs filed five applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 C. P. C. When the petitions came up for hearing on 25-8-1989, only respondents 2, 3 and 5 took notice. The case was posted to 28-8-1989 for filing counter and it was directed on 25-8-1989 that in the meanwhile the funds will not be expended. Only some of the respondents appeared on 28-8-1989 and subsequently, the matter was heard and temporary injunction was passed against the respondents by separate orders dated 2-9-1989 and interim injunction and notice were ordered to other respondents who were not on record.

( 4 ) THE details of the various applications and the orders passed thereon are as follows : la. No. 788 of 1989 was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. and temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondents from expending the common fund of the Association except to the extent of limits specified therein. In LA. No. 789 of 1989 urgent notice to the other respondents who are on record was ordered. In that LA. the third respondent was represented by an Advocate. In LA. No. 791 of 1989 temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondents from proceeding further pursuant to the resolution of the Executive Committee passed on 15th and 16th May, 1989 at its Madras meeting and on 1st and 2nd July, 1989 at its Bombay meeting, since they were illegal. Interim injunction and notices were ordered to the other respondents in LA. Nos. 788 and 791 of 1989, in LA. No. 790 of 1989 also notice was ordered to the respondents. LA. No. 793 of 1989 was filed by respondents 2, 3 and 5 in LA. Nos. 788 and 791 of 1989 to vacate the interim order dated 25-8-1989, but it was dismissed.

( 5 ) THE petitioners filed this revision petition against the common order passed by the lower Court. When separate orders have been passed on separate applications independently, an appeal or revision has to be filed separately. Filing of a single revision petition against the common order itself is bad.

( 6 ) THE order that was passed by the lower Court is only on the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. The trial Court specifically mentioned in LA. Nos. 788 and 791 of 1989, while granting temporary injunction, "notice to the other respondents" who are on record. That means what has been passed by the trial Court is only an interim order by taking into account the circumstances mentioned in the applications and the provisions contained under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C P. C. The settled position of law is that when an order has been passed on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. an appeal lies against the said order to the competent Court as provided under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) which reads as follows:"xliii (1) Appeals from orders :

Click Here to Read the rest of this document