AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jhanji, J.—Respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (petitioners herein) from treating the plaintiff-respondent as English Master and relieving him to attend the Seminar "English Subject" forcibly and without consent of the plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff, he was a Social Studies teacher and therefore, could not be compelled to join any course in English. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff made an application for grant of ad-interim injunction. On receipt of the application in suit, the trial Court adjourned the case to 7th January, 1992, for filing of written statement and for hearing the application for grant of ad-interim injunction. This order was challenged in appeal by the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed and in consequence thereof, petitioners-defendants were restrained from sending the respondent-plaintiff to attend the seminar on English subject. The order is being impugned in the present revision petition.
After going through the orders of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, I find that this revision petition deserves to succeed. Under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal was maintainable only if the order had been passed. The trial Court did not pass any order on the application made under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It had only adjourned the case for deciding the application. Injunction was neither refused nor granted. In this view of the matter, the order of the first appellate Court cannot be sustained as no appeal was maintainable.
As a result thereof, the revision petition is allowed, order of the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, is set aside, and a direction is given to the trial Court to decide the application for grant of ad-interim injunction after hearing the parties.