Decided on November 28,1988

Padarbinda Bhuyan Appellant
State Bank of India And Ors. Respondents


S.C. Mohapatra, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF is the petitioner in this civil revision against an order refusing the prayer for temporary injunction during pendency of the suit.
(2.) PLAINTIFF is a clerk employed by the Defendant. He was posted at the main branch of the Defendant at Cuttack. After serving for some time, be was transferred to the branch of the Defendant in SCB Medical College. Aggrieved by the order of transfer Plaintiff filed the suit for prohibitory injunction not to give effect to the order Of transfer which is alleged to be in violation of the circular issued by the head office of the Defendant. In the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed. Defendant filed objection to the said application but did not produce some documents caned for and did not answer the interrogatories. Accordingly it was not allowed to contest the application. However, trial court which passed the order of status quo vacated the same. This civil revision has been filed against the said order. Mr. M. N. Das, learned Counsel for the opposite parties, raised an objection to the maintainability of the civil revision on the ground that an appeal lies against the impugned order which could have been filed in the District. Court. Mr. ]. Das, learned .counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the application for temporary injunction was filed invoking the inherent power of the Court under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure and not under Order 39. Rule 1. Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly, no appeal lies against the order under Section 151 . Code of Civil Procedure . This question need not detain me further since without answering the preliminary objection of Mr. . Das, I considered the matter on merit.
(3.) MR . J. Das. submitted that the trial court has not been able to appreciate the decisions of the Supreme Court, reported in Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi and Anr. : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1331 and Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director Health Services, Patna Division, Patna and Ors., A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1577, for which there is exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. As has been held in Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited and Ors. : A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 1272, while considering the application for temporary injunction, prima facie case and balance of convenience are to be considered. This Court has also held in the decision reported in Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation Limited, represented by its Secretary v. Satyanarayan Singh and Anr., I.L.R. 1973 Cut. 1059 that for granting temporary injunction, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury are to be satisfied. In case any of the three ingredients is not satisfied, no injunction should be granted.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.