The Court cannot bypass the provisions of Section 80(2) C.P.C. and invoke the inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. to grant an interim injunction.

The application under S.115 C.P.C and under art 227 of the constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20-01 81 passed by Shri B.B Deb Munsiff sadar at Agartala in Misc case No.390 of1981 arising out of the title suit no.314 of 1981. The circumstances leading to the present petition are as follows :

The plaintiff who is serving at sonamurawest tripura district in the post of sub divisional public relation officer was transferred to Kanchanpur T.D. Block "in the same rank", by an order of the Joint Director, Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, Government of Tripura, Agartala dated 30-9-81. Being aggrieved by the said order of transfer the plaintiff opposite party instituted T.S. No.314 of 1981 in the Court of Sadar Munsiff, Agartala for declaration of the order of transfer as void, invalid and illegal and for perpetual injunction. A prayer for temporary injunction was also made by the plaintiff whereupon Misc. Case No.390 of 1981 was started. As regards temporary injunction the learned Munsiff tided over the constraint of the provisions of sub-so (2) of S.80, C.P.C. by having resort to S.151 C.P.C. and made the impugned ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1-3 from implementing giving effect to the impugned order of transfer and issued show cause notice to the defendants fixing 5-11-81 for hearing about the temporary injunction. Thereafter this revision petition has been instituted challenging the aforesaid order.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party submitted that this revision petition is not entertainable in view of sub-s.(2) of S.115, C.P.C. wherein it is laid down that the High Court shall not under this section vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court Or to any court subordinate thereto. Under the provisions of O.43(1)(r) an order under Rules 1 and 2 of O.39, C.P.C. is appealable. Learned counsel for the defendant petitioners on the other hand, was of opinion that these provisions apply to an appeal to the High Court and do not apply to an appeal to a subordinate Court. An appeal against an order Of temporary injunction lies to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and not to High Court, and, there4 fore, according to the learned counsel the revision to the High Court is quite maintanable. In support he relied on s. S. Khanna v. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497, Vidya Vati v. Devi Das, AIR 1977 SC 397 and Vasu v. Narayanan, AIR 1962 Ker 261. But these decisions relate to a period prior to the coming into force of the amended C.P.C. In the unamended S.115 of old C.P.C. there was no mention of the appellate Court and it was ruled in these cited cases that where appeal lies to any Court below the High Court revision under Section 115, C.P.C. lies to the High Court and that if the appeal lies to the High Court revision under Section 115, C.P.C. cannot be entertained. But in order to avoid the ambiguity found in the provisions Of the old section the amendment to Sec.115, C.P.C. has made it clear that revision is barred against the order in which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. So it is found that revision is incompetent against an order in which appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. In that view this revision is quite incompetent. Learned counsel for the defdt. petitioners gave up the point and had recourse to the submission that as the impugned order of temporary injunction has been passed by the learned Munsiff under Section 151, C.P.C. the revision is quite competent in the High Court. It is found, however, that the impugned order dated 20-10-81 was passed by the learned Munsiff in exercise of his inherent powers under S.151 C.P.C. (sic). The learned counsel for the plaintiff opp. party pointed out that the impugned order of temporary injunction was passed by the learned Munsiff under Order 39, Rule 2 C.P.C. and that this bei