An interim injunction does not revive automatically upon restoration of a suit after dismissal for default; a new order is required for its enforcement.

1. This revision arises in the following circumstances. Ved Prakash, Plaintiff - opposite Party, filed a suit against the Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow, the defendant - applicant for a permanent injunction restraining the Nagar Mahapalika from removing the stall constructed by him on the plot of land which he alleged to have obtained on rent from the Nagar Mahapalika. The plaintiff also obtained an interim order against the Nagar Mahapalika on 14th May, 1971 for maintaining status quo. That order was confirmed on 30th November, 1971. The Nagar Mahapalika filed its written statement in the suit on 5th February, 1972. The suit was however dismissed for default on 27th April, 1973. But on the motion of the plaintiff the order of dismissal was set aside and the suit was restored to its original number on the same date namely, 27th. April, 1973. While the suit was still pending the Nagar Mahapalika removed the stall from the land in question on 7th October 1974 and dispossessed the plaintiff from that land. The plaintiff then moved an application before the trial court on 19th October 1974 for a direction to the Magar Mahapalika to restore the stall and the possession of the land to him so that he may do his business and earn his livelihood. This application was moved under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Notice was issued to the defendant but no objection was filed by it. The learned Munsif relying on the uncontroverted affidavit of the plaintiff held that the defendant had disobeyed the court's order; hence the plaintiff was entitled to get back the possession. He therefore ordered that the defendant should restore the possession to the plaintiff of the disputed plot and the stall which had been removed illegally. Against that decision the Nagar Mahapalika filed a revision in the court of the District Judge Lucknow. That revision was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge, Lucknow. Aggrieved, the Nagar Mahapalika has preferred this revision.

2. For the applicant Nagar Mahalika it was urged that on dismissal of the suit for default on 27th April, 1973, the temporary injunction did not survive. Hence the defendant had not committed any breach of the injunction order. Consequently the tidal Court had no jurisdiction to direct the defendant under S.151 of the Code of the Civil Procedure to restore the possession of the land in question and the stall. For the plaintiff - opposite party relying on Hari Nandan v. S.N. Pandita , ( AIR 1975 All 48 ) it - was urged that the trial court could pass an order under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to undo the wrong done to the plaintiff in whose favour the temporary injunction order had been issued.

3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it would be useful to recall that the order granting interim injunction was passed on 14th May, 1971 and it was confirmed on 30th November, 1971. The suit was, however, dismissed for default on 27th April, 1973. The order of dismissal for default was set aside and the suit was restored on 27th April, 1973. The Nagar Mahapalika removed the stall and dispossessed the plaintiff from the land in question on 7th October, 1974, when the suit was pending. Hence it on the setting aside of the dismissal order and the restoration of suit to its original number the interim injunction order stood revived, the Nagar Mahapalika acted in disobedience of the injunction order. But if the injunction order did not revive on the setting aside of the dismissal order and the restoration of the suit, the Nagar Mahapalika cannot be said to have committed breach of the injunction order. The basic questio