9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entertaining a revision when an appeal lies against the impugned order. 2. Dismissal of application for mandatory injunction by trial Court. 3. Scope of passing mandatory injunctions under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Analysis: 1. The defendants filed a revision after their application for a mandatory injunction was dismissed by the trial Court. The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection citing Section 115(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, stating that an appeal could be filed against the order instead of a revision. The facts involved a suit where the defendants were restrained from trespassing on the plaintiff's property. The trial Court initially granted an ex parte interim injunction, which was later vacated upon objections from the defendants. The defendants claimed the plaintiff had obstructed a pathway they were using, leading to the application for removal of the fence, which was dismissed by the trial Court. 2. The preliminary objection contended that the impugned order fell under Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code, making it appealable. The discussion delved into the history of mandatory injunctions under Order 39, citing various judgments supporting the issuance of such injunctions. The argument centered around whether a defendant could seek an injunction under Order 39. The judge examined the provisions of Rule 1 and highlighted that the language allowed for injunctions against either party. The purpose of the rules in Order 39 was to maintain status quo during litigation and protect the rights of all parties involved. Ultimately, the judge upheld the preliminary objection, stating that the impugned order was appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(r), and not subject to revision. 3. The detailed analysis focused on the interpretation of Order 39, Rule 1, emphasizing that the rule allowed for orders of injunction, including mandatory injunctions, to be passed on applications filed by defendants. The judge highlighted the absence of any prohibition against defendants seeking injunctions against plaintiffs, indicating that the rules aimed to protect the rights of all parties involved in the litigation. The judgment concluded that the impugned order fell within the scope of Order 39, Rule 1, making it appealable and not subject to revision. The defendants were advised to file an appeal and seek condonation of delay due to the pending revision petition.
|
