Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.C. Pandey, J.
Smt. Bhagwanti
Vs.
Anna @ Appa
Civil Revision No. 216 of 1994 (J)
Decided On: 07.10.1996
INJUNCTION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - ORDER 39, RULE 1 & 2, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - AMENDMENT BY M.P. ACT 29/84 - PROVISO ADDED - NO TEMPORARY INJUNCTION CAN BE GRANTED IF PERMANENT INJUNCTION CANNOT BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 38 AND 41 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they are the legal tenants of the suit property and cannot be evicted other than by way of decree passed for eviction in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. They also sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from executing the decree of possession passed in a suit transferred to the Additional District Judge, Burhanpur.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction because the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Khandwa at Burhanpur was not a subordinate court to it. The court also held that no temporary injunction can be granted if a permanent injunction cannot be granted under Section 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Issues: Whether a temporary injunction can be granted to restrain a person from prosecuting a suit or a proceeding pending before a court which is not subordinate to it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the amendment to Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by M.P. Act 29/84, which added a proviso stating that no temporary injunction shall be granted where no perpetual injunction could be granted in view of the provisions of Section 38 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court also relied on the Supreme Court decision in Cotton Corporation of India Limited Vs. United Industrial Bank Limited and others, which held that a court cannot grant an injunction restraining a person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court which is not subordinate to it.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both revisions, but directed that the impugned decree sought to be restrained by way of temporary injunction shall not be executed for six months from the date of passing of the order.
S.C. Pandey, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 24.3.1994 passed by Shri G.L. Sutrakar. Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge. Khandwa at Burhanpur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 12/92, whereby the lower appellate Court has reversed the order of the trial Judge refusing to grant temporary injunction under Order. 39, Rule 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the connected Civil Revision No. 217/94 are identical and therefore, order passed in this revision shall also govern the disposal of that revision too.
2. The facts of this revision are as follows :-
(i) The defendant/applicants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the applicants are the legal tenants of the suit property and they cannot be evicted other by than way of decree passed for eviction in accordance with the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961;
(ii) The applicants further prayed that the non-applicants be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from executing the decree of possession passed in Civil Suit No. 45/62 passed by senior civil court, Jalgaon (Maharasthra) which was transferred to the Additional Distt. Judge, Burhanpur and is registered as the Transfer Case No, 45/62.
(iii) It was further prayed that it be declared the that decree passed in Civil Suit No. 45/62 by the Jalgaon Court is not binding upon the applicants as they were not parties to that suit.
3. It was alleged by the applicants in their plaint that the suit shop described in the Schedule A of the plaint was given to him by way of lease by Pannalal in the year 1966. Since then, the applicants were tenants of Pannalal. It was further alleged in the plaint that suit shop was let out in the year 1966. The rent was Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty) per month. This suit shop was let out by Pannalal to the applicants as a 'Karta' of the joint hindu family of which the non-applicants No. 1 to 8 were the members. It was further alleged that Pannalal took rent 2 to 2 1/2 years and thereafter Pannalal directed that the rent should be given to non-applicant No. 9, Devidas. After the aforesaid period, tenancy was transferred to Devidas. Subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs. 70/- (Rupees Seventy) per month and at the time of filing of the suit, the rent was Rs. 70/-(Rupees Seventy per month). It was alleged in the plaint that the payment of this rent is recorded in the accounts of Pannalal and Devidas. It was also alleged that at the time of letting out by Pannalal, the applicants have paid Rs. 400/-(Rupees Four Hundred) for converting the suit shop into 'Paras Kangan Stores' and for this purpose they paid Rs. 400/- which is also recorded in the accounts' books of Pannalal. The applicants further prayed that after obtaining the decree Civil Suit No. 45/62 the applicants are being shown as tresspassers and the transfer decree being executed against them by Add. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Khandwa at Burhanpur in Transfer Case No. 45/62. It was further alleged that the applicants were not a party to Civil Suit No. 45/62 and therefore they were not aware about the decree passed in that suit. It was stated further that on 6.6.1988, there was some compromise between the non-applicants No. 1 to 8 and Pannalal and the compromise decree was obtained and by virtue of that decree the applicants are being deprived of their rights in suit property as tenants and they are being evicted under the decree as tress passers without following the procedure of eviction as laid down in M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. This suit was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-I Burhanpur.
4. On these allegations, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the applicants and they sought a temporary injunction to the effect that the non-applicant No. 1 to 8 be restrained from executing the decree obtained by them in the Civil Suit No. 45/62 which is registered as Transfer Case No. 45/62 in the C
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
