The central legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary nature of issuing injunctions, considering the needs of administration and relevant provisions of the Bengal Municipal Act.

( 1 ) CIVIL Revn. case No 1408 of 1948 is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, reversing on appeal an order of the Munsif, 2nd Ct. , Baraset, granting an ad interim injunction at the instance of the present petnr. against defts. 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the suit before him from interfering, or in any way disturbing the exercise of the functions of the pltf. in the suit as Chairman of the Bhatpara Municipality. The ground on which the Rule has been issued was that the order of the Munsif was not a final order and was not, therefore, appealable.

( 2 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge set aside the ad interim injunction granted by the Munsif, but sent the case back for a decision on the point whether a temporary injunction could be granted at all as prayed for by the pltf.

( 3 ) THE pltf. is the former Chairman of the Municipality and alleges that he was coerced into drawing up a letter of resignation, but before it was accepted he asked that no action be taken on it. The defts. in the case, according to the pltf. , however, purported to have his resignation accepted and had sent representation to Govt. regarding the meeting of 23-6-1948, when resignation was said to have been accepted.

( 4 ) IT appears that on 14-7-1948, deft. 4 was elected Chairman of the Municipality and that on the 30th August at a meeting of the Comrs. the powers of the Chairman to operate the accounts of the Municipality in the Imperial Bank of India, the Sub-Treasury, Barrackpore, and the Savings Bank Account with the Post Office to meet the expenses of the Municipality were delegated to the Vice-Chairman of the Municipality, deft. 1.

( 5 ) ON the 7th September, the pltf. , the present petnr , instituted his suit before the Munsif. Defendant 4 (opposite party 4) appeared on that day and was heard, but an order of ad interim injunction was passed and notice was also issued on the remaining defts. to show cause within seven days of the service of the notice as to why an ad interim injunction pending the hearing of the suit, as prayed for by the pltf. , should not issue.

( 6 ) MR. Chandra Sekhar Sen, on behalf of the petnr. , contends that as the order of the Munsif issuing the ad interim injunction showed that he had not finally made up his mind on the question of the issue of an injunction, the order was not final and therefore was not subject to appeal.

( 7 ) IN our opinion, the argument confuses the temporary and limited nature of the injunction with the question of the finality of the order itself. The order, so far as it ran, though it was an order for an injunction for a limited period was clearly final. The pltf. wanted to restrain the opposite parties immediately from the time of filing of his plaint and for ever. The period may be divided into three parts : first, he wanted an immediate order to operate at once and temporarily until the Ct. could give notice and hear the remaining defts. ; secondly, an order to cover the period from the time of hearing the deft. till the final disposal of the suit; and thirdly, an order in the suit itself for a permanent injunction. Each of the orders would be a final order so far as it went. In our opinion, the ad interim injunction was clearly one made under Order 39, Rule 2 and was appealable under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C.

( 8 ) IT is no doubt unusual for such an ad interim injunction to be the subject-matter of an appeal and that for obvious reason ; the normal course is to appear before the Ct. issuing the ad interim injunction and to show cause against issue of a temporary injunction for the duration of the suit. If the cause is successful, no further action is necessary ; if unsuccessful, an appeal may be made.

( 9 ) IN the present case, having regard to the needs of the administration of the Municipality, it was thought fit to take immediate action by an appeal against the first ad interim injunction and the learned Subordinate Judge was fully empowered to hear the appeal and