The court emphasized the discretionary power of the trial court in granting or refusing injunctions, guided by principles of equity and fairness. It also highlighted the equitable principle that a party seeking injunctive relief must come with clean hands.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises out of an interlocutory application by the respondent made under rule 2 of order 39 to the Code of Civil Procedure, in a suit for a permanent injunction brought by him to restrain the deferring with the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands. The trial court issued an ex parte order of ad interim injunction; but when the defendants entered appearance and moved for vacating the said order, it was dissolved. Against the said order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the court of the Civil Judge at Bangalore, who allowed the appeal and granted the temporary injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have preferred the above said Civil Revision Petition.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contention raised in this petition, it is necessary to set out the material facts which are not in dispute. The petitioners were the tenants of the suit lands which belonged to one Ramachandra Rao, who, on 24-4-1959 conveyed the said lands to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed T. C. No. 10 of 1960-61 before the Tahsildar of Magadi, for eviction of the defendants, under the Mysore Tenancy Act. In the said proceedings the case of the plaintiff was that the defendants were tenants on the land, and that he was entitled to seek their eviction. The defendant did not dispute the plaintiff's case that they were the tenants. When the said proceedings for eviction of the defendants were pending before the Tahasildar, the mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction), Act, 1961 (Mysore Act 37 of 1961), hereinafter called the Act, came into force on December 31, 1961. The Act, by Section 4, provided for stay of all suits, proceedings in execution of decrees or orders and other proceedings for the eviction of tenants from the lands held by them as tenants or in which a claim for such eviction is involved in any Civil or Revenue Courts during the period the Act remains in force. Section 3 imposed a total prohibition against the eviction of tenants during the period the Act remains in force from the land held by a tenant. Thus, there is an absolute bar imposed by the Act against the eviction of tenants during the pendency of the Act.

( 3 ) BY virtue of Section 4 of the Act, T. C. No. 10 of 1960-61 referred to above was stayed and the Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry and make any order. The tahasildar of Magadi, however, in open defiance of the Act, proceeded with the enquiry and made an order on April 21, 1962, directing the eviction of the defendants. It must be mentioned that the Tahasildar gave a finding that the defendants were not the tenants, though that was not the case of either party. The Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to order eviction even on his finding that the defendants were not the tenants. On April 27, 1962, within a week of the making of the order of eviction, the Tahasildar purported to execute his order through his Revenue Inspector. A mahazar was prepared by the Revenue Inspector to the effect that possession has been given to the plaintiff. Against the said order of eviction, the defendants preferred an appeal before the assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar Sub-Division, who allowed the appeal and set aside the order made by the Tahasildar, holding that the defendants were the tenants and that the proceeding before the Tahasildar had been stayed by the Act before the order of eviction was made.

( 4 ) WHEN the appeal preferred by the defendants was pending before the Assistant commissioner, the plaintiff brought the suit on June 12, 1962 for a permanent injunction against the defendants, alleging that he had secured possession of the suit lands pursuant to the order of eviction made by the Tahasildar and that the defendants were interfering with his lawful possession. The defendants, after entering appearance, filed their written statement contending, inter alia, that their possession had not been disturbed by the alleged delivery ef

Click Here to Read the rest of this document