The need for proof of 'change in circumstances' and causing 'undue hardship' as the only situations contemplated by the code for vacation/discharge/variation of the injunction.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This revision petition u/s 115 C.P.C. is directed against the order dated 11.7.2003 passed by Ld. District Judge, Manipur East in Civil Misc. Appeal No. of 2003 setting aside the interim temporary injunction order dated 17.9.2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Imphal in Judl. Misc. Case No. 100 of 2002.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner-pattadar in possession of the homestead land under Dag No. 18 of Patta No. 47/203 (Old) and 47/340 (New), ("the suit land" for short). He instituted the suit against the respondents claiming a decree declaring his title over the suit land and a perpetual injunction restraining the respondent No. l, his men and parties from committing trespass into the suit land, etc. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1(a) and (c) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called "the Code" for short) for temporary injunction to restrain same respondents from entering into the suit land pending disposal of the suit.

3. After hearing both the parties, the Ld. Civil Judge held that the suit land is in danger of being wasted or damaged by the agents of the respondent No. l and accordingly passed the order dated 17.9.2002 for maintaining status quo of the suit land as on the date of passing the order. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent No. l preferred an appeal before the Ld. District Judge, who after hearing both the parties set aside the said order of temporary injunction.

4. It is against this appellate order that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of a revision petition. I have heard Mr. R.K. Nokulsona, the Ld. senior advocate assisted by Mr. M. Jagajit, advocate, appearing for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. Ch. Nodiachand, the Ld. senior advocate assisted by Mr. W. Sundar Singh, advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. On going through the impugned order of the Ld. District Judge, it becomes evident and undisputed that the earlier application of the present petitioner for temporary injunction was rejected by the Ld. Civil Judge in his judgment and order dated 27.1.2000 in Judl. Misc. Case No. 141/99 on his finding that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the question for determination in this revision petition is whether the Ld. Civil Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing temporary injunction when the earlier application for the same was rejected.

6. The power to issue temporary injunction is provided in Order-XXXD, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code. The circumstances under which temporary a injunction can be issued by a Civil Court is no longer res integra. The conditions for and the circumstances in which such injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside are provided in Order 39, Rule 4, which may be reproduced hereunder : -

"4. Order for injunction may be discharged, varied or set aside - Any order for an injunction may be discharged, or varied, or set aside by the court, on application made thereto by any party dissatisfied with such order:

(Provided that if in an application for temporary injunction or in any affidavit supporting such application, a party has knowingly made a false or misleading statement in relation to a material particular and the injunction was granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall vacate the injunction unless, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that it is not necessary so to do in the interests of justice:

Provided further that where an Order for injunction has been passed after giving to a party an opportunity of being heard, the Order shall not be discharged, varied or set aside on the application of that party except where such discharge, variation or setting aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances, or unless the court is satisfied that the Order has caused undue hardship to that party.)"

7. In the instant case, the undisputed fact is that the injunction order