1. The petitioner on 21.1.2007 commenced a Civil Suit against the respondents in the Court of Sub Judge Udhampur for recovery of an amount of Rs.3000/-from the respondents as damages for illegal dismantling of the compound wall, details whereof were given in the plaint. The petitioner also asked for permanent injunction decree perpetually restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit compound or any construction "of his choice" raised by the petitioner on the suit land. Alongside the suit the petitioner filed an application for grant of ad-Interim injunction. The Trial Court on the date of institution of the suit and temporary injunction application, granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner and temporarily restrained the respondents from causing any interference in construction of the compound wall raised by the petitioner to fence the suit property. The operative part of the interim injunction dated 22.1.2007 reads as under:

"In the meantime defendants/ non-applicants are temporarily restrained from causing any interference in the construction of compound walling being raised by the plaintiff/applicant in the suit property referred above. This order is however subject to objections from the other side. Plaintiff/ applicant is directed to supply copy of the plaint and documents annexed herewith to the defendants/non-applicants alongwith the copy of order and file a service affidavit to this effect forthwith in terms of order 39 rule 3 (a) (b) CPC."

2. The ad-interim injunction order dated 22.1.2007 was followed by an order dated 29.1.2007 directing Additional S.P Udhampur, and officer Incharge Police Station Rehambal, to implement the ad-interim injunction on spot, without fail and submit compliance report. Copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the aforementioned Police officers for strict compliance. However, the Trial Court did not take any steps to finally dispose of the temporary injunction application within one month after exparte injunction was passed as is mandated by order 39 Rule 3-A, though the respondents entered appearance and even filed their objections on 6.2.2007.

3. The respondents aggrieved of exparte ad-interim injunction order dated 22.1/2007 filed a civil miscellaneous appeal on 8.3.2007 in the Court of Pr. District Judge, Udhampur. The Appellate Court vide order dated 30.8.2007 set aside the Trial Court order dated 22.1.2007 remanded the matter and asked the Trial Court to pass fresh orders and also restore the position on spot, to the position as it existed prior to commencement of the suit.

4. The Appellate Court order dated 30.8.2007 is assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition on the grounds that the order is against law and facts and liable to be set aside. It is insisted that the order of the Trial Court dated 22.1.2007 fell within jurisdiction of the Trial Court and that the Trial Court while passing the order set-aside in appeal, exercised discretion in a lawful manner warranting no interference from the Appellate Court. The Trial Court, it is pleaded, was alive to the fundamental principles that govern exercise of discretion under order 39 CPC. The matter being of emergent nature, it is averred, the Trial Court rightly dispensed requirement of notice prior to grant of ad-interim injunction. It is pleaded that the order of the Trial Court being subject to objections, the Appellate Court ought to have taken its hands off the matter and permitted the Trial Court to decide the temporary injunction application. The order dated 29.1.2007 is being justified on the ground that the Trial Court confronted with disobedience of the order dated 22.1.2007, was left with no option but to direct the police to ensure compliance of the ad-interim injunction order on the spot. The petitioner also questions competence of the Appellate Court to direct restitution of the position as on the date of commencement of the suit on the ground that section 144 was not applicable to a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document