R.S.Pathak, C.J. - (1.)These are two revision petitions by the plaintiff arising out of proceedings for grant of interim injunction during the pendency of two suits.
(2.)The petitioner filed two suits against the respondents and during the pendency of the suits .applied for the grant of interim injunction. The trial Court granted the interim injunction in each suit in so far that it declared that the status quo between the parties would continue. Curiously, the petitioner appealed against the order in each case, and thereupon the respondent filed a cross-objection in each appeal. The appeals and the cross-objections came on before the learned District Judge, and by his order dated May 12, 1976 he dismissed the appeals and allowed the cross-abjections, and in the result dismissed the applications for interim injunction.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner in these two revision petitions contends that the appeals filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge were incompetent, inasmuch as the trial Court granted an interim injunction in each case and there was no order with which the petitioner could be aggrieved. He urges that as the appeals were incompetent the cross-objections also were incompetent and could not be entertained. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it seems to me that learned counsel for the petitioner is right.