Ad-interim injunction cannot be granted in the absence of a prayer for permanent or mandatory injunction in the main suit, and interfering with the functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is impermissible.

V.M. Jain, J (Oral).:This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated 30.7.2004 passed by the District Judge dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, in a suit for declaration.

2. The facts, which are relevant are the decision of the present appeal, are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that the Civil Court decree dated 25.3.1997 obtained by the defendant-Bank was obtained by it by fraud etc. from the District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan and that the same was illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was also filed by the plaintiffs seeking to restrain the defendant, by way of ad-interim injunction, from attaching, auctioning or selling the disputed property till the disposal of the suit.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant-bank by filing written statement. Reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed, alleging therein that no case for grant of ad-interim injunction was made out especially when the defendant-Bank was effecting the sale of the disputed property in accordance with law through the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.

4. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the said reply. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned District Judge dismissed the ad-interim injunction application, vide order dated July 30, 2004. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs filed the present appeal in this Court, under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same liable to be dismissed.

6. As referred to above, the plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration simplicitor, challenging the Civil Court decree dated 25.3.1997 passed by the District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, in the case titled State Bank of India Vs. Tej Straw Board Pvt. Ltd. the only prayer made in the suit was as follows: "It is therefore, respectfully, prayed that a decree of declaration to the effect that the defendant obtain a decree for mortgage in respect of H No. 3086, situated at Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, in Civil Suit No. 13-N/1 of 1995/1987 fraudulently and by misrepresenting the facts and falsely claiming that the Title Deeds were possessed of by it, and as such, the decree qua mortgage is illegal, void and nonest and has no bearing vis-a-vis the rights of the plaintiffs and further that the said mortgage decree is nullity, nonest in law as the same is without jurisdiction. The plaintiffs are entitled for the rent, from the date of institution of Civil Suit No. 428 dated 4-12-1989 till date, alongwith interest @ 24% PA alongwith costs of the suit, or any other relied which under the circumstances this Honble Court deems appropriate may also be granted."

7. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that except seeking a declaration with regard to the legality or otherwise of the Civil Court decree dated 25.3.1997, the plaintiffs had not sought any consequential relief by way of permanent or mandatory injunction. Even in the body of the plaint, no such reference had been made, except making a reference that the defendants had moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh.

8. At the time when the appeal came up for hearing before me on 25.8.2005, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants had prayed for a short date to seek instructions as to whether the appellants had moved or were moving the trial Court for the amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the plea of permanent injunction in the suit filed by them. Resultantly, the appeal was adjourned. On 39.8.2005 also, the learned counsel prayed for some more time to seek instructions and accordingly the case was adjourned. On 6.9.2005, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants informed the Court that neither any prayer has been made