An order passed under O.39, Rr.1, 2, 3 and 4, C.P.C., is appealable and no revision lies.

This civil revision under S.115, C.P.C. and/or Art.227 of the Constitution of India, is from the order of the Subordinate Judge (II) of Manipur at Imphul dated 15-4-85 affirming the order dated 11-2-85, making the injunction order absolute.

2. In Original Suit No. 9 of 1985, the plaintiff Kshtrimayum Kulla Singh, filed an application for an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendants/opposite parties, restraining them for dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land by way of execution of a decree or otherwise under O.39, Rr.1 and 2, read with S.151 of the C.P.C. and this application was registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 26 of 1985.

3. By order dated 11-2-1985, the learned Subordinate Judge (II), Manipur, after perusing the plaint and the affidavits, found that prima facie case for injunction and for maintenance of status quo between the parties as on that date was made out and that delay would defeat the purpose of that application as well as that of the suit. Considering those circumstances, he found sufficient grounds for passing an order ex parte against the defendants. Hence, the Court ordered that status quo as on that date between the parties be maintained and the defendants/opp. parties be restrained from demolishing the building standing on the suit land till the disposal of that application. Notice was issued to the opp. parties/defendants to show cause why it should not be made absolute and the plaintiff/petitioner was ordered to deliver and send to the opp. parties all documents along with the notice as required by O.39, R.3, C.P.C. From the application as well as this interim order there arises, no doubt, that the Court proceeded under O.39 and notices were required to be issued under O.39, R.3, C.P.C.

4. The defendants/opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 filed written objection to the above application for discharging, setting aside or vacating the aforesaid ex parte order of the Court dated 11-2-85 under O.39, R.4 and/or S.151, C.P.C.

5. By the impugned order dated 15-4-85, it was ordered by the learned Subordinate Judge (II), Manipur after hearing the parties, that status quo between the parties be maintained till the disposal of the Original Suit No. 9 of 1985 and the application was accordingly disposed of. Hence, this revision petition.

6. Mr. N. Kerani Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents, raising a preliminary objection submits that this revision petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of S.115 read with O.43, R.1(r) of the C.P.C., inasmuch as the impugned order is appealable and hence no revision lies.

7. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, demurs and submits that the impugned order could still be regarded as one passed under S.151, C.P.C. rather than under O.39, Rr.1 and 2, C.P.C. Counsel rightly submits that to properly characterise the order, it is necessary to ascertain from the order itself under what provision the Court passed the order. Referring to para 10 of the order dated 15-4-85, Mr. Singh points out that this is a simple order for maintenance of status quo between the parties and could very well be passed under S.151, C.P.C. This would be possible in view of the fact that both in the injunction petition as well as in the objection filed against the interim order, S.151 was clearly mentioned, of course, along with O.39, Rr.1 and 2, C.P.C. This part of the order involves no restraint or injunction. Therefore, it could not be regarded as one under O.39, Rr.1 and 2, C.P.C. Mr. Singh, however, does not dispute the position in law that if the order can be considered to be one under O.39, Rr.1 and 2 it would be an appealable order and no revision would lie.

8. The relevant provisions may be conveniently referred to at this stage. Sub-Sec. (2) of S.115, provides 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