- (1.) Heard Sri J.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri Nripendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for opposite party and perused the record. Facts in brief as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are that for redressal of his grievances, petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, pending before O.P. No. 1. In the said suit, an application for grant of interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC before O.P. No. 1 has been moved, on which O.P. No. 1 passed an order dated 24.9.2012 (Annexure No. 2) thereby issuing notice and calling objection from respondents.
(2.) In view of the said background, the present writ petition filed by petitioner with following main prayer:-- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 i.e. the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Room No. 15, District-Sultanpur to decide the application under Order XXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner before it along with the suit No. 585/2012 (Mohd. Mukhtar Ahmad v. Intsland Bank Ltd. and others). (ii) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 restraining them from taking any illegal action regarding the taking away the Truck No. U.P. 44/T-3999 of the petitioner forcibly from him, during the pendency of writ petition or pending disposal of suit in question.
(3.) Thus, the question which immediately arises is that what principles should be followed by the Courts in the matter of grant of an ad-interim injunction. The answer is contained in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 3 SCC 161, a Bench of three Judges of Apex Court has held that:- It has been pointed out repeatedly that a party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right or course, grant of injunction is within the discretion of the Court and such discretion is not to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of temporary injection is, thus, to maintain the status quo. The Court grants such relief according to the legal principles - ex debito justitiae. Before any such order is passed the Court must be satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and that the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him.;