ORDER :- This is plaintiffs revision against the appellate order dismissing his appeal against the trial Court's order refusing to issue a temporary injunction during pendency of the suit Plaintiff instituted the suit with the following relief :

"The defendants be permanently injuncted not to interfere with the said tube-well (any machinery remaining, ought to be set up or with the electric connection etc. etc.) themselves or through other's direction or indirectly or under any appearances or claims or orders."

During the pendency of the suit an application was moved by the plaintiff for the grant of an interim injunction in the following terms :

"It is therefore respectfully prayed that the defendants be restrained not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and, further, not to prevent the plaintiffs in operating the tubewell in suit."

The trial Court dismissed the application on the finding that there was no machinery in existence and hence the question of operating the tubewell did not arise. Another ground given for rejecting the application was that the plaintiff was co-sharer of the defendant. Against this order plaintiff went up in appeal and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no prima facie case made out by the plaintiff inasmuch as the suit was instituted in a court which had no jurisdiction to try it. The appellate Court applying Section 16, C.P.C. held that the suit could be instituted only in a court in district Meerut where the tubewell was situate and could not be instituted at Bulandshahr.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants challenges the correctness of the view taken by the appellate Court on the ground that Section 16 (d) was not applicable to the suit and in the alternative that the proviso to the section was applicable and the suit was maintainable at Bulandshahr. The reason given in the plaint for instituting the suit at Bulandshahr was the residence of the defendants within the jurisdiction of the Bulandshahr court. Hence the question to be determined in this revision is about the prima facie finding given by the appellate Court about the non-maintainability of the suit at Bulandshahr.

3. Plaintiff filed the suit on the following allegations : that the plaintiffs were the owners of the tubewell and machinery attached thereto, including the electric connection, subsequently they sold away the tubewell connection, including the machinery to the defendants. On 29-12-61 they repurchased 13/16 share from defendants 1, 6 and 7. Later on the defendants removed the machinery on the ground that it belonged to their share and hence what was left belonged exclusively to the plaintiffs. As the defendants threatened to interfere with the plaintiffs' right to peaceful use of the property the present suit was filed for a permanent injunction.

4. Admittedly the tubewell is situate in district Meerut. The machinery had already been removed from the tubewell. Therefore what remained and what would be the subject-matter of the dispute was only the tubewell. A tubewell is an immovable property and this was not disputed by the plaintiffs either before the appellate Court or in this Court. The contention of learned counsel is that as the plaint is also in respect of the machinery that 'ought to be set up' or 'the electric connection to be installed' the suit must be deemed also to relate to movable property. But in the plaint no relief has been claimed about the return of the movable property, nor is there any allegation that the plaintiffs had set up machinery or installed electric connection on the date of the suit. The suit therefore must be treated as a suit purely in respect of immovable property. The relief of temporary injunction claimed by the plaintiff, which has given rise to this revision, was also confined, as already mentioned, to the tubewell.

5. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :

"Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate - subject to the pecuniary or ot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document