TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts are the following : In a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the plains schedule property, an application for a temporary injunction was also filed. The temporary injunction was to restrain the defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property or from cutting open a pathway through the said property. The trial Court granted an ex parte interim injunction order. When the defendants entered appearance and tiled objections, the Court vacated the ex parte order and dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Neither the appellate Court nor the revisional Court disturbed the order dismissing the application for injunction. Defendants' case that they were u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on that point. Beaman, J. expressed that doubt first as early as in Rasul v. Pirbhai AIR 1914 Bom 42. It was doubtful for his Lordship whether the Court has power at all to issue mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application. Shah, J. who was also on the Bench, however, did not share the doubt expressed by Beaman, J. and the learned Judge left the question to be decided in other appropriate cases. During the same period another Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Champsey Bhimji Co. v. Jamna Flour Mills AIR 1914 Bom 195, had adopted the opposite view and held that mandatory injunctions can be granted on interlocutory applications filed under Order 39 of the Code. The said view has been consistently followed in later decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eatens, or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property (or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further order) ((c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit) . R. 2 envisages only application filed by the plaintiffs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to contain the eventuality in which even a defendant may have to seek for injunctions against plaintiffs. That apart, there is no prohibition in the Rules under Order 39 against a defendant making an application for injunction. Rules in Order 39 and Order 40 are intended to protect the subject matter of the suit and to safeguard the rights of parties during the pendency of the litigation. The principle behind enacting the Rules in Order 39 is to stop the mischief complained of and to keep the things in status quo during pendency of the litigation, if that course is necessary in the interest of justice in each case. It cannot be forgotten that the result of the suit is binding on the plaintiff and defendant equally. Defendant cannot be ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
