R.S. Garg, J. - (1.)The appellant/defendant No. 1 who has suffered an order of injunction passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 47-A of 1989, dated 3.10.1989, has filed the present appeal under order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.)Brief facts leading to the controversy are that truck No. CIJ 8035 which is registered in the names of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, was sold by their father (respondents No. 3) Kallu Qureshi in favour of the present appellant. Possession of the said truck was given by Kallu Qureshi to the present appellant, after receiving consideration of Rs. 60,000.00. Respondent No. 3 had also executed a sale letter in favour of the present appellant. The present appellant lodged report at the Police Station on 25.4.1989, standing therein that the truck has been stolen. On the said report, the truck was seized by the Gorakhpur Police. After seizure of the truck, respondents Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs applied for Supurdnama to take the truck in their possession. After hearing the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were represented by their lather (respondent No. 3), the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered that the truck be delivered to respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The said order was challenged by the present appellant before the Sessions Court and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, setting aside the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1989, by his order dated 11.5.1989 ordered in favour of the present appellant. Respondents No. 1 and 2, through their guardian lather (respondent No. 3), filed a criminal revision No. 330 of 1989 before this Court, which was dismissed on 31.3.1989. It was held that the present appellant is entitled to get possession of the truck. This Court, while dismissing the revision ordered that if the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are aggrieved by the acts of their father, they can approach the Civil Court for an appropriate declaration of their title over the vehicle and may also file a criminal complaint against the present appellant for forging the said sale letter. However, the order for delivery of possession to the present appellant was maintained.
(3.)Taking advantage of the observations made by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 330 of 1989, respondents Nos 1 and 2 filed the present civil suit No. 47-A of 1989 before the learned trial Court for declaration of their title and permanent injunction. In the said suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was also filed that possession of the truck be not delivered to the present appellant. It would not be out of place to mention that immediately after the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had taken possession of the truck. The appellant, after putting in appearance before the learned trial Court, raised various contentions and submitted that the truck was purchased by the present respondent No. 3 form his own funds in the names of his two minor sons. According to him respondent no. 3 is the real owner, while respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are Benamidar. It was also submitted by him that they parted with a sum of Rs. 60.000.00. It was also submitted that respondent No. 3 earlier appeared as guardian of respondents No. 1 and 2 and now the mother Smt. Munni Bai has filed the present suit as the next friend of the minors. It was further submitted that if under the order of one criminal Court, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have taken possession of the truck, then they are bound to restore possession of the truck to the present appellant as the order passed in their favour has been set aside. It was also submitted that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong, parties must be relegated to their original position and if under some order of some Court, possession of the truck was delivered to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 then after the order is set aside the truck should be given back in the custody of the Court and the order passed by the criminal Court should be observed in its letter and spirit.