M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises the question as to how far a defendant in a suit can obtain a temporary injunction against the plaintiff under Order 39, rule 1, read with Section 151, C. P. C.

( 2 ) THE earlier decision of Chinnappa Reddy, J. , (as he then was in D. Rama Naidu vs. D. C. Venkata Subba Naidu #1 falls to be further explained in the context of the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 C. P. C.

( 3 ) I shall briefly refer to the facts. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Pending the suit the appellants filed I. A. No. 141/84 for grant of temporary injunction in their favour and for restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession. That application was dismissed by the trial Court on 13-6-1984 and an appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed in c. M. A. No. 1108/84 on 30-7-1987. Thereafter the defendants filed the present I. A. No. 8/86 for grant of temporary injunction against the plaintiffs. The appellants-plaintiffs filed a counter contending that the present application at the instance of the defendants was not maintainable. It was also stated that the plaintiffs are in possession. From the order of the lower Court, it appears primarily that the question of maintainability of the defendants application was considered and not any other question. The learned counsel for the appelants-plaintiffs has however produced a large numberr of pabanis and cist receipts which according to him were not filed in the earlier LA. No. 141/84. It was explained that they were not filed by the appellants counsel even in the present I. A. No. 8/86 inasmuch as the counsel understood that the question of maintainability of the said application filed by the defendants, was alone being considered, it is argued that the appellants are entitled to rely on these pahanis and cist receipts even if the i. A. No. 8/86 filed by the defendants is held to be maintainable.

( 4 ) I may state that the Lower Court held that the application filed by the defendants for grant of injunction against the plaintiffs is maintainable.

( 5 ) IN this appeal the only question that arises for consideration is with regard to the maintainability of the said application. I am not going into the merits of the plaintiffs or of the defendants.

( 6 ) BEFORE adverting to the statutory provisions, it is necessary to refer to the relief claimed in I. A. No. 8/86 now filed by the defendants. It reads as follows :"it is therefore, just and proper that the Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue an interim injunction order restraining the respondents, their men, servants, agents and all other persons claiming throuh them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, pending disposal of the suit". In other words, the defendants claimed an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering with the alleged possession of the defendants in respect of the suit property. I shall now refer to the provisions of Order 39, Rule 1c. P. C. They read as follows :"where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise, (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defending his creditors; (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit. The Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging alienation, sale, removal or dispcssession of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff" or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, as the Court thinks fit, until t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document