RAM SANEHI, CONTROLLER IMPORTS AND EXPORTS Vs. M/S JOHN TRADING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order passed by City Judge. Srinagar in Civil Original Suit No. 77 of 1986 on June 20-11 -1986 issuing a temporary ex-parte at interim injunction against the present petitioner/defendant in that case directing the petitioner to grant the enrolment number to the respondent for the current year as well as it was continuously being done and granted to him during the last many years in connection with the Simplified-Payment Scheme.

(2.) The respondent alleging himself a registered Exporter having its principal place of business at Boulevard, Dalgate, Srinagar operating as a registered exporter since 1970 brought the suit against the petitioner for a mandatory injunction praying inter alia that a decree in the nature of mandatory injunction commanding defendant/petitioner to release/grant the aforesaid enrolment number in favour of the. plaintiff forthwith and also to release/grant all the consequential benefits under the Simplified Payment Scheme. The suit was filed on June 20, 1986, alongwith the suit an application for issuance of interim relief in the mandatory form was also submitted without indicating the provisions under which the said application has been filed, however, the-relief claimed in the said interim application was for the issuance of mandatory interim injunction against the petitioner controller, Imports and Exports, AIR Cargo Complex, Srinagar to grant forthwith the release of enrolment number in favour of the respondent. In the application the said relief is claimed against the petitioner in discharge of his legal obligations cast on him under the provisions of the simplified payment scheme. The learned trial court on the very day passed the order impugned for the grant of enrolment in the form of a mandatory injunction asking the petitioner to appear before the court on June 25, 1986, the order was passed subject to the objections of the petitioner. The petitioner has chosen to file the present revision petition straight-way on June 24, 1986 instead of moving the learned trial court.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner in the present revision is based on three grounds, firstly because no injunction can be issued against a public officer from doing or not doing a particular official Act enjoined upon him under some statute, secondly, because the order impugned in the mandatory form directing the petitioner to issue the enrolment number to the respondent, the order passed without the compliance of Sec. 80 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is without jurisdiction and bad in law and thirdly that in view of the bar imposed under Sec. 56 of the Specific Relief Act, no injunction can be issued without complying the provisions of Order 39 Rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and any such order issued in violation of Rule (3) without notice is ineffective and void ab initio.