The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the defendant's undertaking and the applicability of precedent in determining the issuance of an injunction.

1. The 5th defendant in a suit, which was stayed under Act I of 1957, is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition and the revision arises out of an application by the plaintiffs in the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any building in the suit property. Before the trial court the 5th defendant gave an undertaking that the building he was constructing would be removed without raising any claim for compensation in case the plaintiffs established their claim to recover possession of the property and the learned Munsiff on the basis of this undertaking dismissed the petition for injunction. The plaintiffs took up the matter in appeal to the lower appellate court, which reversed the decision of the trial court and issued an injunction restraining the 5th defendant from putting up a building in the property pending suit. The 5th defendant questions the correctness of this decision of the lower appellate court.

2. The lower appellate court has relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Israil v. Samset Rahman (AIR. 1914 Cal. 362) in support of its judgment. Since it involves a principle of law and the same is likely to arise frequently in our courts, I would quote an extract from the judgment and would consider its effect. The relevant passage at page 363 reads:

"Under circumstances like these, the matter for consideration at this stage is, where does the balance of convenience lie; is it desirable that the status quo should be maintained or is it right that the defendants should be allowed to continue to alter the character of the land? It is well-settled that the court will not refuse an injunction in a case of this description so as to give the defendants an undue advantage over the plaintiffs. If the defendants in the case before us were allowed to proceed to the completion of the building which has been erected by them on the land, it in indisputable that they will be placed in a position of undue advantage over the plaintiffs. In this connexion, reference may be made to the judgment of Sir George Jessel in the case of Aynsley v. Glover (1874) 18 Eq. 544 -43 LJC.777-31 LT. 219 - 33 WR.147), where that learned judge observed as follows: "At all events this being an interlocutory application, let me continue my building, and I will undertake to pull down if the court shall so think fit'. [the underlining is mine]. That is a very specious argument to address to the Court' but one must have regard to the effect of allowing such a proceeding. Supposing a defendant erects a building at great cost, when he comes to the hearing he will say to this Court: 'Compare the injury to me in pulling down the building, with the injury to the plaintiff in allowing the building to remain'. Ought or ought not the court to give weight to such' a representation? I think upon this point the observations of Vice Chancellor Kindergly, in the case of Carriers' Company v. Corbett (1860) 2 Dr. & Sm. 355-12 LT. 169 -13 WR.1056 - 62 ER. 656], are very important. The Vice-chancellor says: 'If the defendant's new buildings had not been completed, there would have been ground for interference by injunction; but as they have been completed, the question is, whether the Court ought to or would order the pulling down of the buildings or give compensation in damages.

The defendant's new buildings are of considerable magnitude and importance while the two houses of the plaintiffs are comparatively of small value and importance; and it has been decided that in such a case, the Court will not as a matter of course, order the defendant to pull down his new buildings, but will give the party injured by the erection of those buildings compensation in damages. It appears to me that this is precisely one of such cases Consequently, the learned Vice-Chancellor considered that the buildings being erected, the comparative values of the defendant's buildings and the plaintiff's were sufficient to induce him to refrain from gr