This revision is another example how by issuing injunction by way of charity injustice is caused.

2. The opposite party herein was initially appointed as a teacher in a Primary School against a suspension vacancy of one Bonomali Sen. That person was reinstated in service and on his reinstatement the service of the opposite party was terminated but to give benefit to her, in the meantime against the vacancy another teacher who retired, she was allowed to continue in that post till the post is filled up on regular basis or until further order. Thereafter on 9.1.89 the service of the opposite party was terminated by the Deputy Inspector of Schools by cancelling the earlier order of appointment dated 28.6.88,'From the written statement filed later on it appears that the order dated 28.6.88 was obtained by the opposite party by threatening the Deputy Inspector of Schools along with some other miscreants. The written statement shows that the service of the petitioner was terminated even before filing of the suit. The suit was filed with the following prayers :

(i) Declaring that the order dated 9.1.89 issued by the defendant No.3 is ultra-vires and inoperative.

(ii) Declaring that the plaintiff is still in service as a teacher in No .41, Cirigpart TE Lower Primary School.

(iii) Restraining the defendants from appointing any other persons against the post which is held by the plaintiff.

3. On the basis of these prayers temporary injunction order was passed by the trial Court. But in the plaint itself there is no prayer either for a temporary or permanent injunction. Along with the plaint an application for injunction was filed and the learned Munsiff on 20.1.89 directed the defendants opposite parties to maintain status quo as on that day. What was the meaning of the order, that is not known, because a prayer for temporary injunction may be made only in aid of permanent injunction. In terms of the prayer of permanent injunction only temporary injunction order can be passed. The trial Court granted the relief which was not sought for by the plaintiff. Thereafter this order of temporary injunction was made absolute on 3.4.93. It is alleged that the Deputy Inspector of Schools did not comply with this order. An application was filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging violation of the order of injunction. The learned Munsiff by order dated 3.4.93 made the order of temporary injunction absolute in Misc Case No.7 of 1989 and found the Deputy inspector of Schools to be guilty for violation of the order of maintenance of status-quo as on 28.1.89. It is needless to say that to find a person guilty for violating the order of injunction and/or maintenance of status-quo the Court must approach the matter in a cautious and prudent manner. A person can not be found guilty for violation of the order of injunction until the Court passes a specific order so that the litigant understands the order of injunction. A bald order for maintenance of status-quo without stating anything can not be enforced and rightly the Deputy Inspector of Schools could not follow the same. It was absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction on the part of the learned Munsiff to find the Deputy Inspector of Schools to be guilty for violating the order of injunction. Accordingly the order dated 3.4.93 in Misc Case No.7 of 1989 shall stand quashed.

4. Next coming to the question regarding order dated 3.4.93 in Misc Case No. 1 of 1989, that was an order of maintenance of status-quo making the earlier order of injunction absolute. It may be stated herein that no such prayer was made in the plaint by the plaintiff. Only three prayers were made in the plaint. But without prayer of an injunction an order of maintenance of status-quo was granted. It is well settled that without making prayer of permanent injunction no temporary injunction can be granted. When a permanent injunction was not sought for the question of granting temporary injunction does not arise.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document