RAMACHANDRAIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed under order 43 rule-1 (r) C. P. C. by the plaintiff in o. s. No. 2544/89 on the file of the x additional city civil judge, Bangalore city (for short 'the trial judge') against the order dated 15-9-89 passed on i. as. Ii and iii by the learned trial judge dismissing i a. ii filed by the plaintiff under order 39 rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent- defendant, their men etc. , from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of their office room described in the plaint schedule pending disposal of the suit filed by them for perpetual injunction and allowing i. a. ill filed by the respondent-defendant under order 39 rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. read with Section 151 C. P. C. for an order of temporary injunction against the plaintiff in respect of the same room restraining them, their office-bearers, members, agents etc. , from functioning and ceasing to occupy the said room either in groups or in single pending disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience,reference will hereinafter be made to the parties to this appeal with reference to the positions they occupy in the suit in the trial court.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF is an association calledindian institute of management employees' association (for short 'the association' ). Defendant is a premier national institute of higher education in management studies established at Bangalore, by the government of India in 1972 and it is wholly financed by the government of india. The administration of the institute is vested in a society registered underthe karnotaka societies Registration Act. The plaintiff- association is registered under the trade union act 1926 and it is carrying on its trade union activities. The association represented by its secretary, filed a suit in o. s. 2544/89 in the trial court for a judgment and decree against the defendant- institute for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their men, their agents, their servants or any other person, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property which is a room situate in the ground-floor of the faculty 'a' block measuring east to west 15 feet. North to south 25 feet with two ceiiing fans, one pedestal fan, one typewriter, two godrej steel almirahs, three filing cabinets, five tables and about 30 steel folding chairs, eight steel chairs, telephone instrument (disconnected), files, papers, correspondence and records of the association worth about Rs. 30,000/- (herein after referred to as 'the office room' for the sake of brevity ). Along with the filing of the suit on 5-5-1989, the association also filed i a ii under order 39 rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. for an order of temporary injunction against the defendant-institute in the above terms pending disposal of the suit. On that application, an order of status- quo was passed by the learned trial judge. Defendant-institute entered appearance and filed its objections to i a. ii and also a detailed written statement opposing the main prayer as well as the interim prayer made by the plaintiff-association. It also filed i. a. ill under order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 C. P. C. for an order of injunction against the association in respect of the office room in the terms mentioned above. Both parties also produced certain documents in support of their respective contentions.

( 4 ) THE case put forward by theassociation was that on a consideration of charter of demands placed by it before the management of the institute, their demand No. 46 regarding facilities provided for the association in the campus of the institute was conceded and an office room was placed at the disposal of the association for carrying on its activities and the required furniture and other amenities like phone were also provided at the cost of the institute and the association was carrying on its activities in the office room right from 1983. But, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document