A temporary injunction can be granted in a suit filed in forma pauperis, even before the application for permission to sue as a pauper is granted, in exercise of the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the CPC, for the protection and preservation of the properties of the indigent person.

( 1 ) THE dominant sole question involved in the present writ petition is whether in a suit which has been filed in forma pauperis for relief of temporary injunction can be granted. This question has come up in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) IT is common case of the parties that one Dwarka Prasad Agarwal was owner of the properties nos. 217/34 and 217/37 situate at Bhuteshwar, Mathura. He left behind him his two sons, namely, Bal Kishan Agarwal, the present petitioner and late Kanhaiya Lal Agarwal who died leaving behind Suit. Kavita Rani his widow and two sons respondent Nos. 1 and 6, besides three daughters, who are respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Pulin Garg, one of the sons of late Kanhafya Lal agarwal respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 65 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior division), Mathura, for the relief of partition of his 1/12th share in the disputed properties and for permanent injunction against the present petitioner-defendant No. 1 to restrain him from interfering with his joint possession over the properties in dispute and from alienating them in any manner. With the institution of the suit, an application for temporary injunction was moved by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. The present petitioner filed an objection setting up the plea that though the properties belong to late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal. a family settlement had taken place between the parties on 16. 4. 1990 in respect of which a document was reduced to writing on the said date. It was asserted by him that besides disputed properties, which have been shown to be joint, he had also thrown to the common lot properties Nos. 50 and 51 situate at Okhla industrial Area. Delhi which, at one point of time, were owned by him exclusively. Okhla properties were also made the subject of partition.

( 3 ) AFTER taking into consideration the respective submissions of the parties, the trial court refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff- respondent No. 1 who filed a Misc. Civil appeal No. 43 of 1998. This appeal has been decided by the 1st Additional District Judge, mathura, by order dated 6. 4. 1999. Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The application for temporary injunction moved by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was allowed to the extent that the present petitioner-defendant No. 1 was restrained from interfering in Joint possession of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, or, from raising constructions over any portion of the properties and from alienating the properties, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The other defendants were also restrained from making any further constructions. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come before this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) HEARD Sri R. P. Goyal. Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner (defendant No. 1) and Sri P. K. Misra, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, at considerable length.

( 5 ) A preliminary objection was raised by Sri P. K. Misra, learned counsel for the piaintiff-respondent No. 1 that the present writ petition fs not maintainable as all the defendants have not been arrayed as party to the suit and that since the orders of Civil Judge (Senior division ). Mathura and 1st Additional District Judge. Mathura have been challenged and a direction is sought against them, they were necessary parties to the petition. It was also urged by sri Misra that in a writ in which directions in the nature of certiorari and mandamus are claimed, it is necessary to implead the Presiding Officers who have passed the orders. On the objection of sri Misra and at the direction of this Court, defendant-respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have been impleaded and In this manner all the persons who were party to the suit have been arrayed in the writ petition. Now the question is whether Civil Judge (Senior Division ). Mathura, who rejected the application for temporary injunction and the