Decided on July 25,1986

RAM SANEHI Appellant
John Trading Corp Respondents


- (1.) THE revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order passed by City Judge, Srinagar in Civil Original Suit No. 77 of 1986 on June 20 -11 -1986 issuing a temporary exparte ad interim injunction against the present petitioner/ defendant in that case directing the petitioner to grant the enrolment number to the respondent for the current year as well as it was continuously being done and granted to him during She last many years in connection with the Simplified -Payment Scheme.
(2.) THE respondent alleging himself a registered Exporter having its principle place of business at Boulevard, Dalgate, Srinagar operating as a registered exporter since 1970 brought the suit against the petitioner for a mandatory injunction praying infer alia that a decree in the nature of mandatory injunction commencing defendant/ petition to release/grant the aforesaid enrolment number in favour of the plaintiff forthwith and also to release/grant ail the consequential benefits under the Simplified, Payment Scheme The suit was filed on June 20 -1986, along with the suit an application issuance of interim relief in the mandatory from was also submitted without indicating provisions under which the said application has been field, however, the relief claimed in the said interim application was for the issuance of mandatory interim injunction against the petitioner controller, Imports and Exports, AIR Cargo .Complex, Srinagar to grant forthwith the release of enrolment number in favour of the respondent. In the application the said relief is claimed against the petitioner in discharge of his legal obligations cast on him under the provisions of the Simplified payment scheme. The learned trail court on he very day assed order impugned for the grant of enrolment in the form of a mandatory injunction asking the petitioner to appear before the court on June 25, 1986, the order was passed subject to the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner has chosen to file the present revision petition straight way on June; 24, 1935 instead of moving the learned trial court.
(3.) THE main contention of the petitioner in the present revision is based on three grounds, firstly because no injunction can be issued against a public officer from doing for on doing a particular official Act enjoined upon him under some statute, secondly because the order impugned in the mandatory from by directing the petitioner to issue the enrolment number to the respondent, the order passed without the compliance of Section 80 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is without jurisdiction and bad in law and thirdly that in view of the bar imposed under Section 5& of the Specific Relief Act, no injunction can be issued without complying the provisions of order 39 Rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and any such order issued in violation of Rule (?) without notice is in -effective and void abinitio. The revision is hotly contested by the respondent. At the out set a preliminary objection is raised to the entertain ability of the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the order impugned is not a case decided and That if at all the order is appealable under the provisions of Order 43 Rule (I) of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus the revision is int -competen.;

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