Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE facts in brief as submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a suit before the respondent No. 1, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar, District Faizabad, which was registered as Suit No. 15 of 2010, Ram Kishore v. Kanti Devi and Anr., and the said application for grant of interim relief under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has been moved by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 had issued notices to the respondents thereby calling the reply/objection before granting the temporary injunction as prayed by the petitioner. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said action on the part of the court below is totally without jurisdiction and contrary to law as provided under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(3.) THE legal position on the subject for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. is now well settled and the same can be summarized as under: (1) Interim relief should not be granted merely by asking that there must be sufficient ground for granting such relief. (2) Interim relief which amounts to final relief which could have been granted at the time of final determination of the case should not be granted. (3) In exceptional circumstances where the fact situation requires the Court to pass an interim relief amounts to final relief, the Court must record the reasons so that its correctness may be examined by the party/revisional court.;