Judgement Key Points

MILAP CHANDRA, J.—This application has been moved for reviving the Revision Petition No. 307/86 which was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the suit out of which it arose had been rejected under O. 7 Rule 11, C.P.C.

2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is clear from the order dated January 17,1989 passed by this Court in the said revision petition that it was dismissed as becoming infructuous on the ground that the plaint had been rejected on 23. 11, 1985 under 0. 7 Rule 11, C.P.C, the order dated 23. 11. 1985 rejecting the plaint has been set aside, the suit has stood restored to its original number, as a result thereof, the injunction order giving rise to the revision petition has also stood revived and, therefore, the revision petition be taken on record and be decided on merits. He relied upon Ganesh Pd. v. Laxmi Narain (1), Binayak Swain vs. Ramesh Chandra (2), Saranatha Ayyangar vs. Muthiah Moopanar (3), Tavvala Veeraswami vs. Pulim Ramanna (4) and Nandipati Rami Reddi vs. Nandipati Padma Reddy (5).

3. In reply, it was contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners Mo l to 8 that the temporary injunction giving rise to the Revision Petition No. 307/86 came to an end on the rejection of the plaint by order dated 23.11.1985, it did not stand revived on the order of the appellate Court setting aside the order rejecting the plaint, as such the temporary injunction giving rise to the said revision petition does not exist today and there is no question of its revival. He further contended that a fresh application for injunction was moved by the plaintiffs after the revival of the suit, the trial Court has issued an injunction on this application and the petitioner has filed an appeal against this order in the Court of District Judge, Bhilwara. He relied upon Gangappa vs. Boregowda (6), Abdul Hamid vs. Karim Bux (7), Ranjit Singh vs. Dr. Sarda Ranjan Prasad Sinha (8) and Gopi Halwai vs. Bibi Zainab Khatoon (9).

4. In reply to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the non-petitioners, Mr. Sarndariya contended that concession made by an Advocate of a party on a point of law is not binding on the party.

5. While disposing of the Civil Revision Petition No. 307 of 1986, this Court observed in its order dated January 17, 1989 as under-

"The question relating to temporary injunction and the Civil Revision No. 307/86 arising out of it may be disposed of at the out-set. It is obvious that on termination of the suit in the trial Court, by rejection of the plaint on 23. 11. 85 the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court also came to an end, with the result that the appeal pending against grant of temporary injuction had become infructuous. That appeal, therefore, should have been dismissed on this ground and not on merits. For the same reason, Civil Revision No. 307/86 also is infructuous inasmuch as the temporary injunction granted by the trial eourt on 28.5.1984 has already come to an end with rejection of the plaint by the trial court on 23.11.1985, whereby the suit terminated in the trial Court."

It is not in dispute that the civil suit giving rise to the said revision petition No. 307/86 has beep remanded & restored to its original number.

6. The only question for consideration in this application is whether on the setting aside of the order of rejection of the plaint and its remand by the appellate court, the temporary injunction issued by the trial court stood revived ? It is well-settled law that interlocutory orders which are meant to aid and supplement the ultimate decision arrived at in the main suit or appeal would be ancillary order and such order would stand revived automatically on the restoration of the suit. Orders granting temporary injunction do not aid and supplement the ultimate decision of the suits. As such they cannot be said to be ancillary orders. Relying upon Abdul Hamid vs. Karim Bux, (supra) and Gangappa vs. Boregowda (supra) it has been obs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document