D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The opposite party Nos. 2. 3 and 4 filed O.S. No. 842 of 1999 before the learned Additional Civil Judge. IIIrd Court. Allahabad for the following reliefs : (a) That by decree of mandatory injunction the defendants be directed not to transfer the plaintiffs from City Allahabad to any other city. (b) That the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs. (c) That any other and further reliefs be also awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant which the Court deems fit and proper In the interest of justice.
(2.) In connection with the said suit, the opposite parry Nos. 2. 3 and 4 had filed an application for injunction. By an order dated 28th July, 1999 notices were directed to be issued on the petitioner, while the learned trial court was not satisfied that ad interim order could be issued before issuing the notice under Rule 3 of Order XXXIX. This order was challenged by the Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Civil Revision No. 940 of 1999. The learned Additional District Judge, IInd Court, Allahabad by an order dated 3rd August. 1999 had granted an ad interim injunction till 20th September, 1999 staying the operation of the transfer of the opposite party Nos. 2. 3 and 4 respectively.
(3.) It is this order, which has since been challenged by Mr. Triloki Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, on four grounds. The first was that the suit relates to a contract of employment which cannot be enforced in view of Section 14 read with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and as such the said suit is not maintainable. The second ground was that the order passed in Order XXXIX, Rule 3 is not a case decided and. therefore, no revision could be maintained under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him. in case it is held to be a case decided in that event it would in effect amount to refusal to grant of injunction which is then an order within the meaning of Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the order would be appealable. In case it is not an order within the meaning of Rules 1 and 2 in that event any order passed under Rule 3 cannot come within the purview of a case decided. The last point he argued us that if ut is an order under Order XXXIX. Rules 1 and 2 In that event, the revisional court cannot assume juridiction and therefore, the revision is also not maintainable and therefore, no order of ad unterim injunction could be issued since the same order would be without jurisdiction.;