J.V.Gupta, ACJ. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani dated 8th June, 1988 whereby the order of the trial Court granting ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from dismissing the plaintiff' from service was maintained.
(2.) The plaintiff Ram Niwas filed the suit for perpetual injunction thereby restraining the defendants from dismissing him from service. Along with the suit he also moved an application for ad interim injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendants from terminating his service during the pendency of the suit. The said application was opposed on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has a prima facie cate and will suffer has irreparable loss in case the ad interim injunction is not granted. Consequently, vide order dated 19th May, 1988. ad interim injunction was issued. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and thus maintained the order granting ad interim injunction Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have filed this revision petition in this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner defendants submitted that no such ad interim injunction could be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against me defendants as the suit itself was not maintainable. In any case the ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from terminating the service of the plaintiff could not be passed as the plaintiff could challenge the final order of dismissal if any. According to the learned counsel, neither there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff nor there was any balance of convenience in his favour. Thus, argued the learned counsel the Courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. On the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that the suit as such was maintainable and since the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss in case the ad interim injunction was not granted, the Courts below have exercised their discretion in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and, therefore, the same should not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. In support of his contention that the suit as such was maintainable, lie referred to Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana, 1982 RLR 173, Tata Chemicals Ltd and others v. Kailash C. Adhvaryu, AIR 1964 Gujarat 265, Raj Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1975 SC 536 and Matchwel Electricals (India) Ltd. v. Shri Muni Lal Verma and others, AIR 1962 Punjab 93.;