- (1.) Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-petitioners. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was filed along with the suit for temporary injunction seeking that the defendant-petitioners be restrained from transacting the business of the Samiti. This application was disposed of by the trial Court on 11.10.1990 with the observations that the rights of the parties could not be conclusively determined at that stage and, therefore, the injunction as prayed for could not be granted nor ordered the status quo to be maintained during the pendency of the case. Plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal. This appeal was disposed of on 17.9.92 by the Additional District Judge by the impugned order. In the impugned order a direction was given that the bricks lying on the brick-kiln be not sold during the pendency of the suit with further direction that if for any reason bricks had to be sold then the sale proceeds thereof be put in the bank for one year to the credit of the Samiti and the amount be withdrawn at the end of the one year or earlier by the party found entitled to it as per decision of the trial Court. Defendant-petitioners have come up in revision against the order of the appellate court. It ws argued by the counsel for the defendant-petitioners that the bricks which were lying on the brick-kiln were sold during the pendency of the appeal and the plaintiff-respondent is insisting that the sale proceeds of the bricks be deposited in the bank. It has been further stated by the counsel that the plaintiff-respondent has filed an application in the trial Court seeking a direction, that the defendant-petitioners be directed to deposit the sale proceeds of the bricks which have already been sold.
(2.) I have heard that learned counsel for the parties at length.
(3.) To me, the order of Additional District Judge, Sangrur, is clear. The direction given is that the bricks be not sold and if they were to be sold in future only then the sale proceeds were to be deposited. It does not mean that if the bricks had already been sold even then the sale proceeds were to be deposited in the bank. The appellate Court in its order is referring to the future transaction of sale of bricks if for any reason it takes place but not for the past transactions which might have already taken place. This revision petition is disposed of with this clarification that the bricks lying on the brick-kiln be not sold but if they are to be sold in future only then the sale proceeds of these bricks be deposited in the bank. The sale proceeds of the bricks already sold need not be deposited in the Bank. No costs.;