The defendant in O.S.No. 344 of 1984 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Anantapur, filed this appeal against the reversal judgment of the appellate Court in A.S.No. 49 of 1994 allowing the appeal when the trial Court dismissed the said suit.

2. The plaintiffs, the respondents herein, filed suit for recovery of Rs.17,000/- towards damages for obtaining an order of interim injunction in I.A. NO.911 of 1978 in O.S. No. 658 of 1978 on the file of the learned Prl. District Munsif, Anantapur, on improper grounds.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant, the appellant herein, filed 0.S.No.658 of 1978 with totally false and untenable allegations claiming right over the properties wherein there was standing crop raised by them, and filed I.A.No.911 of 1978 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC and obtained temporary injunction restraining them from interfering with the property and obtained orders of ex parte interim injunction on 4-11-1978. Under the guise of the said orders, he took away standing korra and groundnut crop valued about Rs.17,000/-. When they filed counter, it was converted to status quo order on 6-7-1978. Subsequently, the said application was dismissed on 5-11-1978. Against which the defendant preferred an appeal in e.MANo.15 of 1 079. It was also dismissed on 24-9-1979. Then they filed IANo. 1032 of 1978 under Order 39, Rule 3-A and Section 151 CPC claiming damages to a tune of Rs.1,000/-. The suit was dismissed for default on 20-1-1982. IANo.1032 of 1978 was also dismissed along with it.

4. The plaintiffs thereupon filed O.S. No. 344 of 1984 on 10-11-1984 claiming damages on the ground that the defendant had appropriated crop worth Rs.17,000/- under the guise of the orders of injunction in I.A. No. 911 of 1978 in O.S. No. 658 of 1978. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the earlier suit was never decided on merits, and the rights in the properties were never adjudicated and no loss or damage was caused to the plaintiffs. At any rate, the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed more than six years after the injunction was ceased.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the appropriate issues were framed importantly in regard to the question of limitation and the entitlement towards damages.

6. The plaintiffs, in proof of their case, examined P. WS.1 to 3, the 1st plaintiff as P.w.1, and filed Exs.A-1 to A-19, copy of earlier order in I.A.No.911 of 1978, commissioners report, certified copy of the decree and judgment, registered sale deed, patta issued in their favour etc. Refuting their evidence, the defendant did not examine any witnesses, but filed Exs.B-1 to B-4 marked by consent, namely, certified copy of the petition under Order39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC in IA No.1 032179 and the order passed thereon.

7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the defendant did not cut and carry away any crop. It was further opined that in view of the dismissal of the application in IANo. 1032 of 1979 claiming for damages, the suit was not maintainable. It was further held that the injunction application having been disposed of on 5-12-1978, and the suit having been filed on 10-11-1984, and by virtue of Article 90 of the Limitation Act, the suit was barred by limitation. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs.

8. Aggrieved by the said decision, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. 49 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur. The learned Judge re-appraised the evidence and opined that there was a loss of crop to a tune of Rs.2,950/-. He opined that Section 95 of CPC provides for a summary remedy for an injury and enables to receive compensation for the injury done to him, when the (sic. by an) application to the Court instead of by a suit. However, the remedy is optional. Relying on a decision reported in Indersingh v. Chief Commissioner reported in AIR 1963 Punjab 158, opined that granting injunction does not render a party