The

captioned

second

appeal

is

filed

by

unsuccessful

plaintiff

who

is

questioning

the

judgments and decrees of the Courts below wherein

both the Courts though granted injunction in favour of

the plaintiff, but however, directed the plaintiff to

deposit a sum of Rs.14,300/- every month from

1.12.2007

till

the

defendant-panchayath

takes

possession under due process of law.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties

are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3

3.

The plaintiff who is the tenant instituted a

bare suit for injunction in O.S.No.82/2007. The

plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.2 seeking interim

injunction against the defendant-panchayath from

dispossessing the plaintiff. The said application was

allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 21.11.2007

subject to plaintiff depositing Rs.14,300/- every

month.

3(a) The Trial Court having examined the oral

and documentary evidence decreed the suit thereby

granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff and

restrained

the

defendant-panchayath

from

dispossessing the plaintiff except under due process of

law. Further, the Trial Court directed the plaintiff to

deposit Rs.14,300/- every month till the defendant-

panchayath secures possession in accordance with

law.

4

3(b) The plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the later

part of the judgment and decree which imposed a

condition on the plaintiff to deposit Rs.14,300/- every

month preferred an appeal in R.A.No.23/2008. The

Appellate Court having independently assessed the

oral and documentary evidence took note of the fact

that while granting the temporary injunction, the Trial

Court has fixed the rent at Rs.14,300/- and has

accordingly granted interim injunction subject to

plaintiff depositing Rs.14,300/- per month. It is in

this background, the Appellate Court was of the view

that if plaintiff had any grievance against exorbitant

rent fixed by the Trial Court, he had a choice to

handover possession. Therefore, the Appellate Court

declined to interfere with the judgment and decree of

the Trial Court and consequently, dismissed the

appeal.

5

These concurrent findings are challenged by the

plaintiff in this second appeal.

4.

This Court vide order dated 18.6.2015 has

formulated the following substantial questions of law:

“In a suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for

bare

injunction

against

the

respondent/defendants, whether the courts

below

are

justified

in

directing

the

appellant/plaintiff to pay rent of Rs.14,300/-

every

month

without

there

being

any

counter

claim

filed

by

the

respondent/defendants?”

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff

and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants.

6.

The short point that needs consideration at

the hands of this Court is:

"Whether

the

Trial

Court

was

justified in imposing a condition on

the plaintiff to deposit Rs.14,300/-

every

month

with

defendant-

panchayath

till

he

hands

over

possession.

6

It is in this background, the above substantial

question of law is framed by this Court.

7.

At first blush though this Court would find

that there was no basis for Trial Court to impose a

condition on the plaintiff to deposit Rs.14,300/-, but

as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

appearing for defendant-panchayath, lot of significant

details are unraveled from the Trial Court records. I

find some force in the submission made by the

defendant-panchayath. The plaintiff was resisting

handing over possession though lease period was

over. Therefore, plaintiff filed an application under

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking interim

injunction. The Trial Court looking into the equity and

irreparable injury that would be caused to the plaintiff

granted an interim injunction. But the same was not

absolute, but was subject to the rider that plaintiff

7

would deposit Rs.14,300/- per month with the

defendant-panchayath.

8.

Now, what is interesting to note is that the

plaintiff did not challenge this condition imposed while

granting interim injunction. May be, he