Smt. Satya Devi and Another vs Kanshi Ram etc.

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a revision petition by the Plaintiffs against the order of the learned District Judge, Kangra modifying in appeal the order of the learned Subordinate Judge issuing certain directions in respect of the user of two motor vehicles and also granting an injunction restraining one of the Defendants from alienating the said motor vehicles.

The Plaintiffs brought a suit alleging that they and Kanshi Ram were the Directors of the Nagrota Ex-Service Transport Company Private Limited and that Kanshi Ram had without authority transferred the two motor vehicles belonging to the Company to one Ram Prakash, and they claimed a declaration that they were co-owners of the said motor vehicles and also an injunction against the user or alienation of the motor vehicles by Ram Parkash.

On application for interim injunction by the Plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit the learned Subordinate Judge permitted Ram Parkash to ply the motor vehicles on furnishing security and also directed him to maintain accounts of the income from such user. In addition he granted an injunction restraining Ram Prakash from alienating the motor vehicles during the pendency of the suit. Ram Prakash preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge and the appeal has been allowed in part by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge has modified the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in some degree, but has not interfered with the injunction.

In this revision petition before me, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs urges that the appeal was not maintainable and the learned District Judge erred in entertaining it. It is contended that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge must be treated as one u/s 151 CPC and not one under Order 39 CPC A number of cases have been cited setting out the considerations which must be examined by the Court when granting an injunction under Order 39 CPC Those considerations are:

(a) that there is a serious question to be tried in the suit and there is a probability of the Plaintiff being entitled to the relief claimed by him,

(b) that if the injunction is not granted the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury during the pendency of the suit, and

(c) the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff.

It is urged that if any of the aforesaid considerations are not kept in mind by the Court then the injunction granted cannot be considered as one under Order 39 CPC In my opinion the contention is misconceived. The mere circumstance that the Court has ignored considerations of law which properly arise when granting an injunction under Order 39 CPC does not necessarily mean that the Court did not intend to exercise the jurisdiction under Order 39 CPC What needs to be determined is the jurisdiction exercised by the Court, whether it was under Order 39 CPC or its inherent power. If the Court grants the injunction on the basis that the circumstances mentioned in Order 39 CPC exist, then the injunction must be treated as one made under the provisions of Order 39 CPC It is only in circumstances not covered by Order 39 CPC that an injunction can be attributed to the inherent powers of the Court. It is well settled now that the Court has inherent powers to issue a temporary injunction in circumstances not covered by the provisions of Order 39 CPC if it is of opinion that the interest of justice require the issue of such interim injunction. Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal,

In the present case, the learned Subordiate Judge granted an injunction restraining Ram Prakash from alienating the two motor vehicles. It is not disputed that the motor vehicles constitute the property in dispute in the suit. The injection granted by the learned Subordinate Judge must be construed as an injunction intended for protecting the property in dispute against alienation by a party to the suit.

An Appeal against it is maintainable under Order 43, Rule 1(s) Code of Civil Procedure.

No other point has been taken before me from which it can be inferred that the order of the learned District Judge suffers from an error of jurisdiction.

The revision petition is dismissed with costs.