Honble YADAV, J. – The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 6.1.95 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nimbahera in civil misc. appeal No. 1/95 by means of which he dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of rejection of application for temporary injunction passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nimbahera in civil misc. case No. 3/94 dated 19.12.1994.

(2). Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the orders impugned passed by both the learned courts below.

(3). In the instant case show cause notice was issued on 16.8.95 to ascertain from the opposite parties as to what was the stage of the construction over the disputed land. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are represented by Shri Rameshwar Chouhan. He stated before me that the construction over the disputed land has been completed.

(4). In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances no useful purpose would be served to interfere with the orders passed by both the learned courts below. However, it is made clear that in such a situation where nature of land in dispute is about to be changed due to which there is likelihood of damage or injury to the subject matter of the suit or any other comparative inconvenience or hardship to the parties the subordinate civil courts are expected to have a glance at the mandatory provisions contemplated under O. 39 r. 7 CPC. In such a situation ordinarily where defendant threatened to change the nature of land causing injury or damage to the subject matter of the suit or any other comparative inconvenience or hardship to the parties it is obligatory on the part of the civil court to direct the parties to maintain status quo till the clouds of rights and liabilities of the parties are finally decided in the suit on merits.

(5). For effective decision of the instant revision the mandatory provisions co- ntemplated under O. 39 r. 7 CPC are reproduced below :–

"O. 39 r. 7. Detention, preservation, inspection, etc. of subject matter of suit-(1) the court may, on the application of any party to a suit, and on such terms as it thinks fit :-

(a) make an order for the detention, preservation or inspection of any property which is the subject matter of such suit, or as to which any question may arise therein;

(b) for all or any of the purposes aforesaid authorize any person to enter upon or into any land or building in the possession of any other party to such suit; and

(c) for all or any of the purposes aforesaid authorize any samples to be taken, or any observation to be made or experiment to be tried, which may seem necessary or expedient for the purposes of obtaining full information or evidence.

(2) The provisions as to execution of process shall apply, mutatis mu- tandis, to persons authorized to enter under this rule."

(6). A similar question came up for consideration before me in the case of UIT, Jodhpur vs. Smt. Sohni Devi another (S.B. Civil Revision No. 765/94, decided on 28.7.95 (1) and it was ruled as follows :–

"It is well to remember that the main object of temporary injunction is to preserve the subject matter of suit in status- quo till the decision of suit whenever and wherever it is found by a civil court that there is threatened damage or injury likely to be caused to the subject matter of the suit. Thus, even if a case was not found to be covered by the learned trial court under O. 39 r. 1 and 2 CPC yet it ought to have passed an order under O. 39 r. 7 CPC for preservation of the disputed construction till decision of the suit on merits." (7). It is pertinent to note that apart from O. 39 r. 7 CPC every civil court has inherent jurisdiction u/S. 151 CPC to pass suitable injunction order. It is true that the civil court would exercise its residuary power u/S. 151 CPC if the case under consideration is found to be outside the scope of O. 39 r. 1 and 2 CPC as well as under O. 39 r. 7 CPC.

(8). In the present case both the learned courts below have refused temporary injunction to th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document