1983 Supreme(MP) 241

Gulab Gupta, J.
Sitaram Sharma (Dr.) v. Kishna
C. R. No. 1025 of 1982 (G); Decided on 3-8-1983

Headnote:(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 1, R. 10 and O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 -- person sought to be impleaded as defendant -- not a stranger to the suit -- injunction can be issued against him.

        (2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- revision under -- scope of interference is limited -- discretion exercised correctly -- interference not called for.

        The original civil suit was filed by one Kishna, non-applicant No. 1 against Gyasiram and Nandram. An injunction was issued against the defendants on 24-9-79. Unfortunately, before defendant Gyasiram could be brought on record, he died on 13-5-81 and his widow had to be brought on record. Thereafter, an application under order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code was filed on 15-9-82 praying for an order joining applicant Dr. Sitaram Sharma as party to the suit. This application is contested and is pending before the trial Court. An application was made under section 151, C. P C. requesting the trial Court to pass an injunction against the applicant Dr. Sitaram Sharma restraining him from interfering with the suit property during the pendency of the application under order 1. rule 10 C. P. C. By the impugned order, the trial Court has found that it was necessary to preserve the suit properly during the pendeney of the application otherwise serious injustice would be done to the parties. On such a consideration, an injunction has been issued restraining the applicant from interfering with the suit land in any manner whatsoever. The applicant being aggrieved by this injunction, is challenging the legality thereof in this revision.

        Held : The submission of the applicant is that he being a total stranger to the suit, injunction order could not have been passed against him by the trial Court. It is, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. This submission is factually incorrect. The applicant no doubt, is not a party to the suit, meaning thereby that he is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant. He is however, before the Court as a party to the application under Order 1. Rule 10, C.P.C. He, therefore, cannot be treated to be a total stranger, In such a circumstances, there is no illegality committed by the trial Court in restraining him from interfering with the suit land.

        Scope of interference with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in granting injunction with a view to preserve status quo is very limited. Once it is held that the discretion has been exercised in accordance with correct judicial principles, no interference can be made in the exercise of powers under Section 115 C. P. C. In this case all principles have been followed. The impugned order dose not suffer any infirmity and hence needs no interference. Revision dismissed.