1985 Supreme(MP) 121

V. D. Gyani, J.
Kanhaiyalal v. State of M. P.
C. R. No 250 of 1983 (I); Decided on 14-2-1985.

Headnote:(1) Land Revenue Code, 1959 -- S. 158 -- land belonging to temple and not to a pubic trust -- Collector or any other authority has no right to interfere.

        (2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 39, R. 1 -- order of injunction under -- no condition can be imposed.

        (3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 -- order of injunction over-lapping in both the rules -- condition can be imposed.

        This revision involves a short but an interesting question, whether the Courts below while granting injunctions under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC, can impose conditions, as has been done in the instant case, directing the petitioners to make the deposit of Rs. 1,000/- annually, which is a matter of grievance for the petitioners, who has filed a suit for declaration in respect of agricultural lands put to auction by the respondent-State. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court while granting injunction in favour of the petitioners, directed them the they should deposit Rs 1,000/- per year till the disposal of the suit in case the interim injunction is to continue.

        Held : The petitioners have claimed Bhumiswami rights in respect of the lands in question. Their contention is that the temple is not a public trust and as such, the Collector of the District could not have interfered in the management and/or enjoyment of the agricultural lands belonging to the petitioner, as claimed by them, which has been resisted by the respondent-State. But it is not necessary to enter into this controversy at this stage Suffice it to say that the Collector or for that matter any public authority has no right to interfere even in respect of the lands or property belonging to a temple, but not of public trust. The authorities come into picture only when the properties are of a public trust and not otherwise.

        Now, coming to the controversy raised in this petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on comparative reading of Rules 1 and 2 of O. 39, CPC, it would appear that while subd`rule (2) of Rule 2, provides for imposing of conditions regarding keeping an account or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit. Such a provision has not been made in Rule 1. The safest rule of construction is to give the provisions their plain meaning. It cannot be said that if the Legislature was not aLi"Ve to the situation where an order is passed under Rule 1, while providing for security and imposition of conditions regarding terms may be imposed by the Courts while acting under Rule 2 of O. 39, CPC, a similar provision could have been introduced under Rule 1 had the Legislature so intended. Therefore it cannot be said that while passing an order under Rule 1, the Court could impose any condition. But so far as the present case is concerned, a perusal of the order as also the application fur injunction, it cannot be safely said that the order does not fall within the purview of Rule 2 of O. 39, CPC.

        In this view of the matter, may be that the relief sought if over-lapping 50 far as Rule 1 and 2 of a 39, CPC are concerned, but the condition of annual deposit of Rs. 1,000/- appears to be rather harsh. Instead of depositing the said amount, the petitioners shall furnish a security to the satisfaction of the Court below that in the event of the petitioners loosing the case, they would pay Rs. 1,000/- per agricultural year to the State Government as damages during the pendency of the suit. Revision dismissed.