SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were not entitled to recover the money by sale of the house in dispute which belonged to the Joint Hindu Family. They also filed an application for ad interim injunction that the said defendants be restrained from auctioning the property till the decision of the suit. The application was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The trial Court dismissed the application. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the District Judge, Ludhiana who accepted the same and granted the ad interim injunction with respect to 11/12th share in the property. Defendant Nos. 1 to 36 have come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the respondents, has urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case the revision petition is not maintainable. He made reference to the Supreme Court judgment in The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, 1973 AIR(SC) 76.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel. The Supreme Court in the case referred to by Mr. Sarin observed that the order of the first appellate Court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts of that case are similar to the present case. In the circumstances, I uphold the objection of Mr. Sarin and hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the revision petition is not maintainable.