The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cause of action and relief claimed in the pleadings for the grant of injunction, and the limitations on the court's power to grant relief not founded on the pleadings.

Hari Nath Tilhari

1. THIS is a Revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. from the Judgment and order dated 27.1.95 passed by the Civil Judge, Haveri in Misc. Appeal No. 21/94 (Jayathirth Ramacharya Gudi and Anr. v. Bindumadhavachar Srinivasachaiya Gudi and Ors.) dismissing the Appeal filed by defendants - 4 and 5 from the order of temporary injunction issued against them by the Trial Court i.e. the Munsiff, Haveri while disposing of I.A.Nos. 2 and 4 in Original Suit No. 165/92 vide its order dated 3.11.94. The lower Court affirmed the order of the Trial Court.

2. THE facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiffs opposite party filed the suit against defendants-1 to 3 namely i.e. the present respondents-4 to 6, claiming the decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants in the suit namely 1 to 3 and their servants or agents permanently from restoring and giving or supplying any electrical energy to the suit schedule property and the welt therein in any manner whatsoever. It may be mentioned that the following expression was also used in the relief clause: "till final decision of the matter on merits i.e. O.S. 164/91 on the file of this court". This expression was later on deleted by amendment under the Trial Court's order dated 16.10.93. THE second relief that has been claimed is costs and such other relief as the Court deems fit. THE plaintiffs as per plaint allegations appears to have alleged the grievance and cause of action against defendant No. 1 namely, the Assistant Executive Engineer, KEB, Haveri. Along with the plaint of the suit, the plaintiffs had filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. THE Trial Court while dealing with the interim relief application has observed as under:

"As stated by me above, admittedly, the plaintiffs have 5/12th share in the suit well. THErefore, defendants 4 and 5 have only the remaining 5/12th or 6/12th share in the suit well. There cannot be any partition in the well by metes and bounds. Under such circumstances, I tried to effect a compromise between the parties, because, both the parties are highly educated. But, both the sides were not inclined for a compromise, Under such circumstances, if the defendants 4 and 5 are permitted to use the electric motor to lift water from the suit well it will definitely lift huge quantity of water and the plaintiffs may be deprived of having any water in the suit well. Normally, it is irrational for the plaintiffs to claim such a relief. Because, in my opinion the plaintiffs could have compromised with defendants 4 and 5 and have used the said pump. THE plaintiffs could have even fixed up their own pump. But, my said views cannot be imposed on the plaintiffs. Had they agreed for the compromise, then, the matter would have been different."

Thereafter, the lower Court mentioned that in Suit No. 164/91 the Court had come to the conclusion that in the absence of the consent of the plaintiffs, defendants 4 and 5 cannot use electric pump for lifting water from the suit well and that permission was absolutely necessary. THE Court further observed that from material available on record, the consent was sought from the plaintiff. But defendants were unable to obtain the consent of the plaintiffs. THE Court was of the view that there is no compromise possible between plaintiffs and defendants 4 and 5. THE Trial Court observed that under the circumstances of the case, it would be better to restrain defendants 4 and 5 from using the electric pump till the suit is decided on merits or till they reach some compromise with the plaintiffs, instead of restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from making supply of electricity to the electric pump fixed to the suit well i.e. if defendants 1 to 3 are directed to stop the supply of electricity, it may perhaps stop the supply of electricity to the house of the plaintiffs. THE Trial Court further observed that the suit has wrongly been filed against defendants 1 to 3 a