Back
1971 Supreme(Pat) 133
PATNA HIGH COURT
B.D.Singh, J.
Chandrama Singh
Versus
Yasodanandan Singh
Civil Revision No. 878 of 1971 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 14, 1971
The grant of an ad interim injunction is subject to the principles of prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience. A civil revision petition is maintainable against an order granting an ad interim injunction if the court has failed to exercise jurisdiction or has acted illegally or with material irregularity.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - AD INTERIM - GRANT OF - CONDITIONS - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE LOSS - PRIMA FACIE CASE - JURISDICTION - REVISION - ORDER GRANTING AD INTERIM INJUNCTION - APPEALABILITY - SECTION 115, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an Excise Superintendent, filed a suit against the Excise Minister and another Excise Superintendent, seeking a declaration that he could not be transferred from his current location within three years of his service there and an injunction restraining the defendants from transferring him. The plaintiff alleged that the Excise Minister was prejudiced against him and had threatened to transfer him. The Subordinate Judge granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from transferring the plaintiff or allowing the other defendant to take over the plaintiff's post. The petitioner, one of the defendants, filed an appeal against the injunction order, and also filed a petition before the District Judge seeking a stay of the operation of the injunction order. The District Judge rejected the petition. The petitioner then filed a civil revision petition in the High Court, challenging the maintainability of the civil revision and the grant of the ad interim injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the civil revision petition was maintainable, as the Subordinate Judge had failed to exercise jurisdiction on a question of well-established principle of law by granting the ad interim injunction without considering the principles of prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience. The Court also held that the Subordinate Judge should not have ignored the mandatory provision of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires a notice to be given to the Government before instituting a suit against it. The Court further held that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case, as the transfer order was not motivated and the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if he succeeded in the suit. The Court also held that the balance of convenience did not necessitate the grant of an ad interim injunction. The Court set aside the order of the District Judge refusing to stay the operation of the injunction order and directed the stay of the operation of the injunction order till the disposal of the appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil revision petition was maintainable. 2. Whether the Subordinate Judge was justified in granting the ad interim injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the civil revision petition was maintainable, as the Subordinate Judge had failed to exercise jurisdiction on a question of well-established principle of law by granting the ad interim injunction without considering the principles of prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience. The Court also held that the Subordinate Judge should not have ignored the mandatory provision of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires a notice to be given to the Government before instituting a suit against it. 2. The Court held that the Subordinate Judge was not justified in granting the ad interim injunction, as the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case, the transfer order was not motivated, and the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if he succeeded in the suit. The Court also held that the balance of convenience did not necessitate the grant of an ad interim injunction.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the order of the District Judge refusing to stay the operation of the injunction order and directed the stay of the operation of the injunction order till the disposal of the appeal.
B.D.Singh, J.
1. This application, under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is directed against an order of the District Judge dated the 7th July, 3,971, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 1971, refusing to stay the operation of the ad interim order of injunction dated, the 17th May, 1971, passed by the Subordinate Judge, in title Suit No. 20 of 1971, whereby he had directed the petitioner (defendant No. 2) and Begun Sumbrai, (opposite party No. 2 -- defendant No. 1), the then Minister of Excise. Government of Bihar, to maintain the status quo, and further restrained the petitioner from joining the post of the Superintendent of Excise, Chaibassa, until further orders.
2. " In order to appreciate the point involved in this application for consideration by this Court it will be necessary to state briefly the facts. Yasodanandan Singh opposite party No. 1, who, was functioning as the Excise Superintendent at Chaibassa, instituted the said title suit on the 17h May, 1971, impleading the petitioner and the then Excise Minister, Begun Sumbrai, as defendants. In Paragraph 5 of the plaint he alleged that the Excise Minister was very much prejudiced and hostile to him, as he did not fulfil illegal directions issued by the Minister, who lost temper, and on the 4th May, 1971, threatened the plaintiff to transfer him to some distant place, as he had not obliged him. On the 10th May, 1971, the plaintiff had been to Patna to attend Excise Officers Conference, when the Minister summoned him at his residence, and asked the plaintiff to mend his ways and to tender apology for not carrying out his orders. The plaintiff thereupon submitted that he was all along following the rules and it would not be possible for him to carry out the illegal order passed by him upon which the Minister became furious, and threatened to transfer him within a week. In Paragraph 6 of the plaint it is stated that the action of the Minister in making transfer of the plaintiff from Chaibassa and posting the petitioner in his place was motivated and it was only to penalise the plaintiff. In paragraph 7 he stated that the cause of action for the suit arose on the 4th May, 1971, when the defendant No. 1 threatened the plaintiff at Chaibassa, on the 10th May, 1971, at Patna and lastly on the 14th May, 1971, when the plaintiff learnt at Chaibassa that defendant No. 1 was going to transfer him. In the suit he sought amongst others the following two reliefs:
(a) It be declared that the Plaintiff cannot be transferred from Chaibassa by defendant No. 1 within three years of his service there and unless the proposal is made by the departmental heads.
(b) The defendant No. 1 be restrained from taking any steps to transfer the plaintiff from the district of Singhbhum to any other place unless the proposal for transfer is made in due course after completion of three years of service at Chaibassa or in the alternative if the transfer order has already been, passed the operation of the order be stayed till the Plff. completes three years of service at Chaibasa and defendant No. 2 be restrained from implementing any order of transfer and from, joining and taking over charge from the plaintiff as Superintendent of Excise, Singhbhum at Chaibassa.
3. It will be relevant to mention here that when the suit was filed on the 17th May, 1971, it was morning court. On that very date a notification in Hindi was issued by the State Government making certain transfers including that of the plaintiff and the petitioner, the relevant portion of which is quoted below in Roman:
"Sankhya A/TR -- 207/70/0 2765 Shri Chandrma Singh, Adhikshak Utpad, Muzaffarpur, ko Singhbhum Jila men Adhikshak Utpad ke rup men padasthapit kiya jata hai. Inka Mukhyalaya Chaibassa men rahega.
Bihar Rajyapal ke adesh se,
Sd. Mehendra Singh.
Sarkar ke Up Sachib.
XXXXXX
Sankhya A/TR-207/70/0 2768 Sri Yasodanandan Sinha Prabhari Adhikshak Utpad Singhbhum ko Saharsa Jila men Prabh
