This revision petition arises from an order dated 23.12.89 passed by the District Judge, Kamrup at Gauhati in Misc. Appeal No. 77 of 1989.

2. In Title Suit No 64 of 1989, on an application filed by the plaintiff, the Munsiff (2) Gauhati granted an exparte interim injun­ction restraining the defendant-1, his agent, and employees from closing the main collapsible gate of the ground floor as well as closing the door for going to the roof, and also from obstructing the plaintiff, his servants and employees from taking water from the Gauhati Municipal Corporation tap. The order was appealed to the District Judge, Kamrup. The District Judge passed interim 'orders pending the appeal staying the order relating to closing of the door for going to the roof, and directing the defendant to allow the plaintiff to take water from the Gauhati Municipal Corporation tap from morning till 10.00 pm. and to keep the collapsible gate open till 10.00 pm for the ingress and egress of the plaintiff. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the lower appellate Court has no jurisdiction to stay an order granting ex parte ad interim injunction passed by the trial Court. He has referred me to a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vasant Dmakar vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 MP 129.

4. In Vasant Diwakar vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 MP 129, it has been held :

"... examination of the language used in sub-clause (1) of Rule 5 clearly provides for stay of proceedings, under a decree or an order, or the stay of execution of a decree. It is, therefore, clear that so far as an order of temporary injunction, as was granted in this case is concerned, there are no proceedings under the order which could be stayed, nor is there any question of execution which could be stayed. In my opinion, therefore, no order could be passed by the learned appellate Court in exercise of jurisdiction under sub-rule(l) of Rule 5 of O 41, CPC."

In the case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the trial Court granted an exparte temporary injunction restraining the defendants from passing transfer orders. In the context, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that there was no proceeding under the order which could be stayed, nor was there any question of execution which could be stayed and, therefore, no order could be passed staying the order of injunction.

5. O 41, R 5(1), C.P.C. runs as follows :

"An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.

Explanation............”

6. Under O 41, R 5(1) the appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of a decree. O 43 R 2 provides that rules of Order 41 shall apply, as far as may be, to appeals from orders. Section 36, C.P.C. provides that the provision of the Code relating to execution of decree shall, so far as they are applicable, be deemed to apply to the execution of orders. Therefore, an appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of an order,

I am not expressing my opinion on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as the case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court ralates to an injunction restraining from passing transfer orders. The fact of the present case is different from that before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Therefore, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court does not help the petitioner. As regards the question whether an order of injunction restraining from passing transfer orders can be executed or stayed. I will prefer to leave the question to be dealt with later, if ever it is alleged.

7. As regards the mode of execution of a decree or order fur injunction, where the party against whom a decree or order for injunction has been passed, the decree or order may be en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document