TARDEO AIRCONDITIONED MARKET BLDG CO OP SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. SATYANARAN G VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this revision application against the order passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay restraining them from prosecuting or taking any steps in a case pending before the Officer on Special Duty of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay. The respondent has filed a suit for a declaratory relief that he is a tenant and other consequential reliefs. In this suit an ad interim injunction was granted by the learned Judge restraining the defendants (i.e. the petitioners) from prosecuting or taking any steps in the proceedings pending before the Officer on Special Duty under the Co-operative Societies Act and it is against this order that the present revision application is filed.

(2.) Mr. Naik, on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Court of Small Causes at Bombay has no jurisdiction to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Officer on Special Duty and the learned Judge was in error in granting the ad interim injunction especially when in such an application even interim injunction cannot be granted. On the other hand, Mr. Vyas on behalf of the respondent has contended that the revision application is not maintainable and he has relied upon a decision of my brother Naik J. (Mrs. Silvane v. Mohomedbhoy J.M. Rowjee) Civil Revision Application No. 491 of 1959, decided on 19/21-7-1960, Naik J., (Bom). He submitted that as an interim injunction granted by a single Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay is subject to appeal before a Bench of that Court, the revision application is not maintainable. He has also drawn my attention to the fact that this is merely an ad interim injunction and this Court should not interfere at this stage.

(3.) Powers of revision of this Court can be exercised in a case which has been decided by a Court subordinate to the High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto provided there is an error of jurisdiction as contemplated by section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is urged by Mr. Vyas that against an order of ad interim injunction granted by the learned Judge an appeal lies to the Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay and therefore a revision application is not competent. Upon a true construction of section 115 of the Code such a contention cannot be accepted. Under that section the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto. The question to be considered is, is it a case where an appeal lies to the High Court? Neither against an ad interim order or the final order that may be passed by the Bench an appeal will lie to the High Court. The word "thereto" pre-supposes that it must be a case in which an appeal does not lie to the High Court and against an order of ad interim injunction whether confirmed or reversed by the Bench no appeal will lie to the High Court. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Vyas cannot be accepted.