1. This revision is directed against the order of District Judge Srinagar dated 12-8-1986 whereby he has confirmed the order passed by First Addl. Munsiff Srinagar on 19-4-1986. The First Additional Munsiff Srinagar by his order seems to have refused to grant an interim injunction against the defendant/respondent. On appeal learned District Judge observed that there was no reason which would empower him to interfere with the order recorded by the trial court. Against the order re-fusing to grant interim injunction by two courts, the plaintiff/petitioner has come up in revision to this court.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that plaintiff has brought a suit in the court of First Addl. Munsiff Srinagar styling himself to be the tenant of the suit property under the defendant respondent, and wants a relief of perpetual injunction that he should not be forcibly evicted from the suit shop.

3. In the written statement the defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff was never the tenant of the defendant. There was no tenancy granted in respect of the suit shop. The plaintiff in fact is said to have been an employee of the defendant in the suit shop and in some dispute between the defendant and his sisters son the plaintiff has admitted defendant to be the owner of the suit shop and also to be in possession of the same. This position was admitted in a case under section 145 crl. P. C. which was initiated in respect of the suit property between the defendant and his sisters son. In a civil suit which was pending in the court of 2nd Munsiff Srinagar a Commissioner has also reported that defendant was in possession of the suit shop. The plaintiff is said to have taken advantage of illness of the defendant on and had forcibly occupied half of the two shops and after having occupied the said shop forcibly he has brought this suit. He is neither a licensee nor a tenant.

4. Court would not interfere in a concurring finding arrived at by two courts about a matter which is interim. The plaintiff is held by the two courts to be not entitled to any relief of temporary injunction. It will be difficult for this court to interfere with such findings which are not shown to be perverse of illegal.

5. Mr. Qayoom has relied on the amended Civil Procedure Code. In order 39 Rule 1, clause (c) is inserted which reads as under:

"That the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise causes injury the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit."

Order 39 deals with cases in which court has discretion to grant temporary injunction. Para a of Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that if any property in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, court may grant interim injunction to protect the various acts mentioned in para (9) of Order 39 Rule 1.

6. Para (b) of Order 39 Rule 1 gives the court a discretion to grant interim injunction where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispossess the plaintiff of his property with a view to defrand his creditors, court may restrain him by ad-interim injunction to do various acts mentioned in the said para.

7. The newly added clause (c) of Order 39 Rule I CPC envisages that court may grant ad-interim injunction when the possession of the defendant is threatened or otherwise there is injury likely to be ensued to the plaintiff in relation to the property in dispute.

8. It is the last amended clause which is relied by Mr. Qayoom for grant of ad-interim injunction.

9. I have considered order 39 Rule I C. P. C. as amended when the plaintiff threatens to dispossess a defendant, the defendant has a right to apply for ad-interim injunction and court in such cases may protect defendant from being dispossessed. But the possession of the plaintiff in such case must be legal, real and it must be rightful. If a defendant is a trespass he cannot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document