( 1 ) THIS appeal is from an order made by the 15th City Civil Judge, Bangalore, on i. As. 2 and 3 in 0 S No. 4369 of 1986, on the 31st of January 1987. By the aforesaid order the learned Judge, affirmed the ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiff in the suit, restraining in particular the 1st defendant from utilising for its own purpose the suit property being a vacant land measuring 5 acres in extent, situate in the city of Bangalore, during the pendency of the suit.

( 2 ) IT would appear, the 1st defendant in the suit being the Life Insurance corporation of India. (to be shortly called the 'corporation') who is admittedly the owner of the suit plot had arranged for laying a foundation stone on the 26th of september, 1986 signifying the commencement of a project for constructing 122 houses on the suit plot for the benefit of the policy holders of the Corporation, accredited to the Bangalore Division.

( 3 ) BY an ad interim injunction the court stopped any steps being taken in furtherance to the programme of foundation laying on the 26th of September, 1986, with the result the scheme of building houses for the policy holders on the suit plot has now come to a stand still, albeit, the preliminary preparations made i. e. , such as calling for tenders, awarding of contract etc. , being aspects adverted to by counsel for the appellant during the course of the argument in this appeal.

( 4 ) I shall refer to the parties as plaintiff and Defendants, during the course of this Judgment. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in the suit an officer called the Senior Divisional Manager, divisional Office, L. I. C. of India, are the respondents. This appeal, however, is contested by the plaintiff, with the 2nd respondent being a mere on-looker which infact is the stance adopted by him even in the suit. Therefore the quarrel herein is only between plaintiff and the first defendant Corporation.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff is stated to be a house building Co-operative Society (to be shortly called the 'society') patronised mainly by the employees of the defendant-corporation working in the Bangalore Division and through the plaintiff society they are seeking to acquire right, title and interest in the suit property on the basis of an assurance stated to have been held out by the defendant corporation in a resolution dated 24-5-198. or adopted by the Board of the L I C. approving the ear-marking of the suit plot for allocation to the plaintiff society for eventual allotment to its members comprising of Class III officers attached to the Bangalore Division of the corporation. It is contended that on the strength of the resolution of the Board referred to supra, the plaintiff was able to secure registration of the society from the registrar of Co-operative Societies and had thereafter gone about inviting applications from its members and collecting deposits etc. But, at a subsequent stage the plaintiff sued defendant corporation in the year 1981 for the relief of permanent injunction which suit was however, withdrawn later according to the plaintiff, with leave to file a fresh suit after the government of India, had lifted the ban against transfer of property by the corporation, an aspect pleaded by way of defence in that suit. The court, in that suit however, granted leave to withdraw, but did not grant specific permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action but said that the plaintiff can sue the defendant de novo on the fresh cause of action that may arise when the Government of India lifted the ban against alienation of property by the corporation.

( 6 ) ONE of the questions arising in this suit is whether it is maintainable, as according to the defendants, it purports to be based, not on any new cause of action available as envisaged, following the Government removing the restraint against the transfer of property by the corporation, a step which is not yet taken according to the corporation It is therefore, cont