Ravishankar And Anr. vs Viith Additional District Judge

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1994 Supreme(MP) 89

B.VERMA, K.M.AGRAWAL, R.C.LAHOTI
Ravishankar And Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Viith Additional District Judge – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope, applicability and ambit of Order 39, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code? What are the grounds for exercising jurisdiction under Order 39, Rule 4 (change in circumstances or undue hardship) when the order of injunction was passed by an appellate court? What is the court's view on whether an application under Order 39, Rule 4 can be entertained by the trial court when the injunction order sought to be discharged, varied or set aside is an appellate order?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the scope, applicability and ambit of Order 39, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code?

What are the grounds for exercising jurisdiction under Order 39, Rule 4 (change in circumstances or undue hardship) when the order of injunction was passed by an appellate court?

What is the court's view on whether an application under Order 39, Rule 4 can be entertained by the trial court when the injunction order sought to be discharged, varied or set aside is an appellate order?

ORDER

1. On the question of scope, applicability and ambit of Order 39, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, two learned Judges of this Court (B. C. Varma, J. and K. M. Agarwal, J.) having differed in their opinions, the matter has been placed before me for resolving the difference.

2. The plaintiff-petitioners have filed the present suit before the Court of Civil Judge Class I, Bhopal based on their title and seeking permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for protecting their possession over the property and restraining the defendant-respondents from raising any construction thereon. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was purchased by them under registered deed of sale dated 12-11-1948 from one Sikandar Mohammad Khan. Sikandar Mohammad Khan had acquired title under an Inayatnama (gift deed) dated 17-3-1947 executed by late Nawab Hanidullah Khan, the then ruler of Bhopal State.

3. The plaintiffs had also sought for an ad interim injunction protecting their possession over the suit land and restraining the defendant-respondents from raising any construction thereon.

4. The suit and the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code file

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1994 Supreme(MP) 89

B.VERMA, K.M.AGRAWAL, R.C.LAHOTIRavishankar And Anr. – AppellantVersusViith Additional District Judge – Respondent

What is the scope, applicability and ambit of Order 39, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code?

What are the grounds for exercising jurisdiction under Order 39, Rule 4 (change in circumstances or undue hardship) when the order of injunction was passed by an appellate court?

What is the court's view on whether an application under Order 39, Rule 4 can be entertained by the trial court when the injunction order sought to be discharged, varied or set aside is an appellate order?

B.VERMA, K.M.AGRAWAL, R.C.LAHOTI
Ravishankar And Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Viith Additional District Judge – Respondent