- (1.) JURISPRUDENCE must move with the changing society for the effective implementation of law and justice. Judge should not only take note of the voice coming from the graves, but, should hear the voices coming from the living persons of the society. The mounting arrears of cases is a signal to the present system and particularly to those persons who are delivering the justice or who are assisting in the delivery of justice that the present system will collapse if the Judges fail to read the writings on the wall. Frivolous litigation is increasing and one of the causes may be the system of dispensation of justice. Judge is expected to be innovative, renovative and should also be prepared to change the rule within the premises of law. I should not be mis- understood when I use the word renovative and innovative as I have qualified them with the word within the "premises" of law. Judge cannot violate the law and Judge has to abide by the law, but, at the same time, the Judge has to interpret and apply the law looking to the needs of the society and should not base his common sense which may be very uncommon today if it is solely based on the voices coming from the graves.-
(2.) UNDER Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. and the Specific Relief Act, there is a power to grant injunction, may be a temporary injunction or permanent injunction. This Court has already held in the case of Nazir Ahmad and others v. Ashfag Ali (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 239/89), decided on 17. 10. 89, that the Court has a power to issue a mandamous by way of temporary injunction and to restore the possession in extra-ordinary cases, though, it may be rare amongst the rarest to a position which existed prior to the filing of the suit. The judgement of this Court has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the S. L. P. has been rejected. There is a traditional system of granting the temporary injunction taking note of only the three factors, namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. These factors are necessary for the determination of the application for grant of temporary injunction. However, the equity and justice require that a person against whom the temporary injunction has been issued should not suffer because of the order of the Court. If the temporary injunction has been allowed in favour of the party it creates and obligation against the party in whose favour temporary injunction has been granted, to compensate the loss sustained by the person against whom the temporary injunction has been granted. A person cannot be allowed to take the benefit of the grant of temporary injunction, if he looses the case finally. Equity requires that at the time of ranting of temporary injunction the condition of equity and justice should be imposed that in case the party who has obtained the temporary injunction in his favour looses the case finally then he will have to pay compensation at the rate fixed by the court at the time of granting of temporary injunction to the party who has won the case finally and who has suffered because of the grant of temporary injunction. Temporary injunction was granted by the learned Munsiff in favour of the petitioner and the eviction of the present petitioner from the disputed premises was stayed. In appeal, the present petitioner failed and temporary injunction was vacated. Being aggrieved with the order dated, 7. 7. 89 passed by the learned District Judge, the present petitioner has come up before this Court in this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Present non petitioner is having a decree in his favour and under the decree he has a right to evict the person from the premises which are in his occupation. Mr. Naqvi submits that the present petitioner is only in possession of one room. Mr. Jain submits that the present petitioner is in possession of more than one room. This is a disputed question of fact and this Court will not like to interfere at this stage. This Court will only pass a limited order that the status-quo as it exists shall be maintained by both the parties and no one will try to evict other by the use of force. Trial Court shall determine the actual possession which exists today by sending the Commissioner on the spot. It is further directed that the plaintiff will pay Rs. 500/- per month as damages to the non-petitioners. In case the present petitioners fail finally in the suit, present petitioners will give an undertaking before the trial court that they will pay Rs. 500/- P. M. in case the suit is dismissed. This undertaking will be given within six weeks. In case the petitioners fail to give undertaking within one month the present non-petitioners will have a right to execute the decree and the conditional stay order granted by this Court shall come to an end.-
(3.) REVISION petition is disposed of accordingly. .;