The court emphasized that an order granting temporary injunction is appealable and that the petitioner had alternative efficacious remedies available.

M. K. MUKHERJEE, C. J.

( 1 ) THE subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dt. Dec. 24, 1991, passed by a learned Munsif of Mahoba in a suit filed by the respondent No. 4 herein whereby he issued a temporary order of injunction restraining the Municipality of Mahoba from holding a meeting to consider a motion of no-confidence against the said respondent and also made a reference under S. 113 of the Civil P. C. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on behalf of the respondents, on the ground that the impugned order of injunction was an appealable one and, therefore, this court could not entertain the writ petition.

( 2 ) IT was, however contended by Mr. Khare appearing for the petitioner that as the suit filed by the respondent No. 4 was not maintainable, the impugned order of injunction was without any jurisdiction. Mr. Khare further submitted that the learned Munsif could not have invoked S. 113 of the Civil P. C. as the point on which he made the reference was no more res integra, so far as this Court was concerned, in view of the Division Bench Judgement of this court in the case of Haji Gafoor Buksh v. State of U. P. reported in 1991 UPLBEC 505.

( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, an order granting temporary injunction is appealable under O. 43, R. 1 of the Civil P. C. and, therefore, the writ petitioner might have invoked and still now may invoke the ordinary jurisdiction of the Civil court to assail the order in question instead of invoking this extraordinary jurisdiction. In other words, the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy. Similarly, the writ petitioner may approach the Civil Court and contend that the reference is not maintainable.

( 4 ) WITH these observations, we reject this writ petition. Petition dismissed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document