SANJAY K.AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC, the State of Chhattisgarh - appellant/defendant herein, has impugned legality, validity and correctness of the order passed by the trial Court granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff herein restraining the State from interfering with the benefits available to him as a member of Other Backward Classes (OBC) on the basis of the order dated 19-11-2004 passed by the Tahsildar, Kurud.
(2.) Essential facts needed to judge the correctness of the plea raised at the Bar are as under:- 2.1 The respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating inter alia that he belongs to Sikh religion, he was born in the area falling in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh, he was granted the certificate of Other Backward Classes (here in after called as 'OBC') dated 25-9-2004 which has been cancelled by the Naib Tahsildar, Kurud by order dated 19-11-2004 and he prayed that it be declared that he is member of OBC and is entitled to all the benefits and rights available to a member of OBC and the State be restrained from interfering with such a right. Along with the suit, the respondent also preferred an application for temporary injunction that during the pendency of the suit, the State be restrained from interfering with his right flowing from the member of OBC by way of temporary injunction. The trial Court without notice to the appellant/defendant granted permission to institute suit under section 80 (1) of the CPC and thereafter, finding that the respondent plaintiff has a prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience also lies in his favour and further finding that if temporary injunction is not granted, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money, restrained the appellant State from interfering with the right of the respondent plaintiff as a member of OBC and other facilities which he is entitled as a member of OBC. Feeling aggrieved by that order, this miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 2.2 In this appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC, the principal ground of challenge is that the cancellation of certificate by the Naib Tahsildar, Kurud is bad as it falls in the territorial jurisdiction of Dhamtari Civil Court and the suit filed seeking declaration of caste status of the respondent plaintiff is barred by law in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others AIR 1995 SC 94 and further on the ground that any member of Sikh religion is not covered in the list of OBC, the only entry of Sikh community "Sikh Harijan" has already been deleted from the OBC and as such, since the Court had no jurisdiction, therefore, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
(3.) Mr. Arun Sao, learned Deputy Advocate General, would submit that the trial Court before granting temporary injunction is required to consider existence of prima facie case which implies prima facie consideration of its jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the suit filed by the respondent plaintiff seeking declaration of his caste status is expressly barred by law declared by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil AIR 1995 SC 94(supra), therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit holding prima facie case and consequently grant for application for temporary injunction and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.;