Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) BY an order dated 1.7.1997 notices were directed to be issued in respect of application for injunction and objections were invited. But nothing was mentioned in the said order that the interim order was not being issued. Mr. V.D. Ojha, learned, counsel for the petitioner contends that since the order was not an order within the meaning of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, therefore, a revision being revision No. 142 of 1997 was preferred by the plaintiff, whom he is representing in this writ petition. The revisional court by an order dated 28.2.1998 had allowed the revision and granted ad interim order restraining the defendants from transferring the suit property. This order is being challenged by Mr. Ojha on the ground that an order of status quo should have been passed by the revisional court in the facts and circumstances of the case. I have heard Mr. Ojha at length.
(2.) THE application on which the order dated 1.7.1997 was passed, was an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 3 of Order 39 requires issue of notice to the opposite parties before granting injunction. It provides that only in cases where object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay, then ad -interim injunction could be granted. Thus, issue of notice is a routine affair under Rule 3. The order does not indicate that any ad -interim injunction was pressed and was refused. Therefore, the order dated 1.7.1997, by which only notices were directed to be issued and objections were invited and a date was fixed, is in effect an order under Order 39 Rule 3. It had nothing to do with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, granting or refusing injunction. Therefore, revision was rightly preferred. But in revision, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was not the subject matter in as much as the revisional court was not concerned either with the grant or refusal of injunction. Therefore, it could not have passed any order within Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39. The revision being confined to Rule 3, the court could pass only an order within the meaning of the said rule.
(3.) ON the other hand, if it is contended that in issuing notice without granting injunction was the subject matter before the revisional court, in that event refusal of injunction before issuing notice could be an order within the meaning of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and as such appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code. If it is so then the revisional court could not have any jurisdiction either to entertain such revision or to pass any order within the meaning of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39. The revisional court very well may direct the trial court to consider the question of grant of injunction even before notices are issued and objections are raised but it could not have extended its jurisdiction to the extent which the appeal court could have done in respect of an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r). Thus, the interim order granted while disposing of the said revision application is not in consonance with the procedure laid down for the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim challenging the said order that the petitioner is entitled to an order of grant of injunction even to the extent of status quo which is also an order of injunction within the meaning of Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39.;