Back
Allahbad High Court
T.S.MISRA
Nagar Mahapalika - Appellant
Versus
Ved Prakash - Respondent
Decided On : 09/25/1975
INJUNCTION - INTERIM INJUNCTION - REVIVAL - DISMISSAL OF SUIT - RESTORATION OF SUIT - EFFECT - SECTION 151, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - INJUNCTION ORDER CEASES TO BE OPERATIVE ON DISMISSAL OF SUIT - DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY REVIVE ON RESTORATION OF SUIT - PLAINTIFF CAN MOVE COURT FOR FRESH INJUNCTION - TRIAL COURT CANNOT DIRECT RESTORATION OF POSSESSION UNDER SECTION 151, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN ABSENCE OF SUBSISTING INJUNCTION ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit against the Nagar Mahapalika for a permanent injunction restraining it from removing a stall constructed by him on a plot of land rented from the Nagar Mahapalika. An interim injunction was granted and confirmed. The suit was dismissed for default but later restored. The Nagar Mahapalika removed the stall during the pendency of the restored suit. Plaintiff moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The interim injunction order ceased to be operative on the dismissal of the suit and did not automatically revive on its restoration. The Nagar Mahapalika did not commit any breach of the injunction order by removing the stall. The trial court had no jurisdiction to direct restoration of possession under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the absence of a subsisting injunction order.
Issues: Whether the interim injunction order revived on the restoration of the suit after dismissal for default.
Ratio Decidendi: An interim injunction order ceases to be operative on the dismissal of the suit and does not automatically revive on its restoration. The plaintiff can move the court for a fresh injunction if the suit is restored. The trial court cannot direct restoration of possession under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the absence of a subsisting injunction order.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the orders of the trial court and the Additional District Judge were set aside.
2. For the applicant Nagar Mahalika it was urged that on dismissal of the suit for default on 27th April, 1973, the temporary injunction did not survive. Hence the defendant had not committed any breach of the injunction order. Consequently the tidal Court had no jurisdiction to direct the defendant under Section 151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure to restore the possession of the land in question and the stall. For the plaintiff-opposite party relying on Hari Nandan v. S.N. Pandita, (AIR 1975 All 48) it- was urged that the trial court could pass an order under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to undo the wrong done to the plaintiff in whose favour the temporary injunction order had been issued.
3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it would be useful to recall that the order granting interim injunction was passed on 14th May, 1971 and it was confirmed on 30th November, 1971. The suit was, however, dismissed for default on 27th April, 1973. The order of dismissal for default was set aside and the suit was restored on 27th April, 1973. The Nagar Mahapalika removed the stall and dispossessed the plaintiff from the land in question on 7th October, 1974, when the suit was pending. Hence it on the setting aside of the dismissal order and the restoration of suit to its original number the interim injunction order stood revived, the Nagar Mahapalika acted in disobedience of the injunction order. But if the injunction order did not revive on the setting aside of the dismissal order and the restoration of the suit, the Nagar Mahapalika cannot be said to have committed breach of the injunction order. The basic question for determination, therefore, is whether the temporary injunction order revived on the setting aside of the order of dismissal for default and on the restoration of the suit to its original number.
4. As long ago as 1887 a question of similar nature arose for consideration before this Court in Chunni Kuar v. Dwarka Prasad, (1887 All WN
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
