A civil court does not have jurisdiction to grant an injunction against a criminal court, and the grant of such an injunction would contravene the Proviso to Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by defendants 2 and 3 in a pending suit against an order of temporary injunction.

2. The respondent has instituted Title Suit No. 53 of 1976 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Aska for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in the alternative recovery of possession and for a decree for permanent injunction against defendants 2and3. The disputed property is a two-storied house located in village Mundamarai within the Aska Taluk. According to plaintiff, one Rama Chandra Misra was its original owner. In 1955, defendant No. 1 and Ignesu Patra jointly purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 2-12-1955. On 9-4-1962 Ignesu sold his share in the property in favour of the first defendant and thus the first defendant became the sole owner. Plaintiff purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 18-5-1972 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. The second defendant had no right, title, interest or even possession over the property. The third defendant was a monthly tenant under the first defendant and on 31st of March, 1972, he surrendered possession to defendant No. 1. The first and the third defendants have disputes on account of a joint business which they were previously carrying in the disputed house and coming to know that the first defendant was about to dispose of the property, the third defendant prevailed upon the second defendant who happens to be a divided brother of the first defendant to execute a sale deed in his favour. The second defendant thus executed a sale deed in favour of the third defendant on 12-5-1972 notwithstanding the fact that the second defendant had no right, title or interest in the property. Plaintiff has been put into possession by his vendor. The third defendant maliciously instituted a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. by his application dated 11-7-1972. The learned Magistrate passed the final order in the following terms:-

"I, therefore, declare possession of the disputed house in favour of the 1st party within two months immediately preceding the date of preliminary order. The 2nd party members are dispossessed and are directed to surrender possession of the disputed house to the 1st party who should be allowed to keep the same in his possession without any disturbance until of course evicted therefrom in due course of law."

Plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit on 20th of Sept. 1976, for the reliefs already indicated and applied for temporary injunction pending suit.

3. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement claiming anterior title in second defendant and present title in the third defendant on the basis of the sale deed. The third defendant filed an affidavit in opposition to the prayer for temporary injunction but therein admitted that plaintiff was still in possession of the property.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge on the basis of materials placed before him has come to hold that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and his present possession should be protected. Accordingly temporary injunction pending suit has been granted. Defendants 2 and 3 assail this order of injunction in the present appeal.

5. Mrs. Padhi for the appellants raises three contentions in support of the appeal, namely:-

(i) The injunction granted by the Subordinate Judge is really against the criminal court. The learned Magistrate who has disposed of the proceeding under S. 145 of Cr. P. C. and is to put the successful party in possession is not a court subordinate to the learned Subordinate Judge and, therefore, injunction cannot be granted under S. 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act;

(ii) Defendants cannot be injuncted from prosecuting the proceeding before the learned Magistrate for being put in possession and the grant of injunction in such a matter would also contravene S. 41 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, in view of the Proviso in O. 39, R. 1 of the Civil P. C. as amended in this Court, namely.

"Provided that no such te