- (1.)THE petitioners before me are the plaintiffs. Their application for issuing temporary injunction was dismissed by the trial Court and so also the appeal filed before the District Judge.
(2.)NON-PETITIONER No. 1 M/s. Shankar Lal and Sons (Private) Ltd. filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment on 8-2-1960 against Bishan Swarup, father of the present petitioners. This suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 180 of 1960. Bishan swarup died during the pendency of the suit and the petitioners as well as non- petitioners No. 2 to 5, who are the widow, sons and daughters of Bishan Swarup, were impleaded in his place as his legal representatives. Non-petitioner No. 2, who is the widow of Bishan Swarup, was made guardian of the minor sons and daughters of Bishan Swarup. On 21-3-1961 a compromise petition signed by Shri s. S. Deedwania, counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 M/s. Shankar Lal and Sons plaintiffs, and Shri J. N. Mehra, counsel for the defendants, in that suit, was filed and according to the compromise, possession of a part of the premises in dispute had been handed over to the plaintiff on 15-3-1961 and it was agreed with respect to the rest of the property that the defendants would deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiffs by 15-11-1964. The Court passed the decree in terms of the compromise. It may, however, be stated that no permission to enter into the compromise on behalf of minors as contemplated by Order 32, Rule 7, Civil P. C, was expressly given by the Court.
(3.)THE non-petitioner No. 1 took out execution of the decree on 28-11-1964, but the judgment-debtors who are the plaintiffs in the present suit resisted the execution of the decree on the ground that since it had been passed in disregard of the provisions of Order 32, Rule 7, Civil P. C. it was a nullity and could not be executed. The executing Court, however, repelled the judgment-debtors' contention and allowed the execution to proceed. Consequently the petitioners filed the present suit in the Court of the Munsif City (West), Ajmer, on 2-11-1965 for setting aside the decree dated 21-3-1961 and also for issuance of permanent injunction against the non-petitioner No. 1 from executing the said decree. They also moved an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 Civil P. C, for issue of a temporary injunction against the non-petitioner No. 1 restraining him from executing the impugned decree passed in Civil Suit No. 180 of 1960. An ex parte injunction was issued by the trial Court on 2-11-1965, but after hearing both the parties, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed on 19-3-1966. The learned Munsif held that the plaintiffs have failed to show a prima facie case in their favour and in this view of the matter the plaintiffs' application for issue of temporary injunction was dismissed and the ex parte injunction passed on 2-111965 was vacated. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, aimer, but without success and, therefore, they have come in revision to this court.
;