VASANT DIWAKAR PATRIKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against an order passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Bilaspur, in M. C. A. No. 9/82, dt 29-4-1982 wherein the learned Judge stayed the operation of the order passed by the trial Court on 20-4-1982 in C. S. No. 13-A/82 and issued notice to the present petitioners as to why this order should not be confirmed. This impugned order of stay passed by the learned A. D. J. was stay of an injunction order which virtually amounted to vacating the injunction order granted by the trial Court in favour of the non-petitioners.

(2.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that these petitioners tiled a suit in the trial Court for declaration and injunction and submitted an application for grant of temporary injunction. In the application for temporary injunction, it was alleged that the petitioners who are taking interest in the trade union activities, are being victimised and with that mala fide intention, transfer orders are expected to be issued to them. It was also alleged in this application that these orders of transfer could not be issued in the circumstances of the case. The learned trial Court granted an ex parte temporary injunction restraining the N. As. from passing the transfer orders and the case was fixed for 5-5-1982 for hearing both the parties. It is strange that the N. As. , instead of appearing before the trial Court on 5-5-1982 and opposing the confirmation of the stay order, preferred an appeal against the ex parte orders granted by the trial Court and obtained an ex parte order vacating the order granted by the trial Court by the impugned order. It is against this that the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an ex parte interim injunction was granted by the trial Court and against that, an appeal was preferred by the N. As. before the teamed lower appellate Court, but the learned lower appellate Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 5 of the C. P. Code, could not pass a stay order as has been done in the present case which virtually set aside the order passed by the trial Court. It was contended that in fact the stay order which has been passed, only amounts to vacating the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the petitioners.