Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to all suits, whether they are suits for injunction or for other reliefs, and that the fact that irremediable harm would ensue to the plaintiff if the strict rule under Section 80, C. P. C., were enforced did not find favor with the learned Judges of the High Courts.

SATYANARAYANA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition was directed to be posted before a Bench by govinda Menon J. , when the matter was pending in the High Court of Madras, as it raised an important question of law regarding the construction of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit was instituted by the 1st respondent in thedistrict Munsif s Court, rajahmundry, for a declaration that defendants 1 and 2, i. e,, the State of madhya Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary, and the Divisional forest Officer, South Bastar Division (Jagadalpur), were not entitled to levy any alleged forest dues from him and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from levying any money by distraint of properties or otherwise. The District Collector of East Godavari was impleaded as the 3rd defendant. In the plaint it was alleged that one Ramachandrayya represented to the plaintiff that he was the auction-lessee for gathering tumki leaf (used in the manufacture of beedie) from the Konta and Gollapalli Ranges of the forest in the South Bastar Division of the Bastar State for Rs. 1,18,000/- to be paid in ten instalments in three years, i. e. 1949, 1950 and 1951, that the plaintiff and Ramachandrayya entered into an agreement of partnership on 5th March 1949 for working the said forest ranges, on the understanding, that Ramachandrayya should get the leases transferred in the name of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff should advance the necessary funds for carrying on the business. Ramachandrayya was unable to secure a transfer of the leases. The plaintiff however paid a sum of Rs. 38,000/- by way of instalments of forest revenue on behalf of the said Ramachandrayya and the Forest Department created troubles by reason of the fact that the permits were in favour of ramachandrayya and so there were considerable difficulties in gathering and transporting leaf to the market at Rajahmundry. The plaintiff paid three instalments but fearing that Ramachandrayya was not in solvent circumstances, the 2nd defendant, in collusion with him, wrote a letter on 15-12-1949 to the plaintiff stating that he was willing to transfer the said lease in his favour. Transfer forms were also sent but the plaintiff refused to enter into an agreement. Notwithstanding the refusal of the plaintiff to enter into a contract with the 2nd defendant, with a view to collect the amount of arrears from the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant sent directions requesting the 3rd defendant. Collector of East Godavari, as the plaintiff owns properties, movable and immovable, in Mirtipadu in Rajahmundry taluk, to distrain the properties of the plaintiff for the forest dues. The Collector communicated the said direction to the Tahsildar, Rajahmundry, and he threatened to distrain the properties of the plaintiff. It is therefore alleged that the action of the 2nd defendant in moving the 3rd defendant to attach and distrain the properties of the plaintiff was highly illegal and that the plaintiff was entitled to pray for a declaration and for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from proceeding with the threatened distraint of the plaintiff s movable and immovable properties. Objection was taken also to the action of the 3rd defendant in threatening, by issuing an order of distraint in pursuance of the direction of the 2nd defendant, and that such an action is illegal and ultra vires and arbitrary. For this reason also, he prayed that the 3rd defendant should be restrained by a permanent injunction from proceeding with the threatened action. Cause of action is said to have arisen on the 1st day of August 1951 when the plaintiff came to know that the 3rd defendant under the directions of the 1st and 2nd defendants was threatening to distrain the properties of the plaintiff at Mirtipadu within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif s Court of rajahmundry. He therefore claimed the two reliefs as stated above. The sum and substance of the defence on behalf of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document