Skip to content


Lachmi NaraIn Alias Munnuji Vs. Ram Charan Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1913)ILR35All425
AppellantLachmi NaraIn Alias Munnuji
RespondentRam Charan Das and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (1908), order xxxix, rule 1; order xliii, rule--injunction--order refusing injunction--appeal. - - in our opinion, an order refusing as well as one granting an injunction is an order passed under that rule and the language of that rule covers both classes of orders......he applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant decree-holder from putting the property to sale. the lower court has refused the application, merely remarking that the applicant can deposit the decree money. a preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from the order. it is contended that order xliii, rule 1, clause (r), merely relates to an order granting an injunction, but not to an order refusing to grant an injunction. in our opinion, an order refusing as well as one granting an injunction is an order passed under that rule and the language of that rule covers both classes of orders. there is no force in the preliminary objection. as regards the merits, the application is not strongly opposed and, in the circumstances of the case, the injunction ought to.....
Judgment:

Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.

1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the court below under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Two decrees were obtained against one Musammat Dropadi, in execution of which certain property was attached. Lachmi Narain objected to the attachment and sale of that property on the ground that it belonged to him and not to the judgment-debtor. His objection was disallowed and he then brought a suit to establish his right. In the course of that suit he applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant decree-holder from putting the property to sale. The lower court has refused the application, merely remarking that the applicant can deposit the decree money. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from the order. It is contended that Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (r), merely relates to an order granting an injunction, but not to an order refusing to grant an injunction. In our opinion, an order refusing as well as one granting an injunction is an order passed under that rule and the language of that rule covers both classes of orders. There is no force in the preliminary objection. As regards the merits, the application is not strongly opposed and, in the circumstances of the case, the injunction ought to have been granted by the court below. We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the court below and grant a temporary injunction restraining the sale pending the final decision of the suit. Costs in the present matter will abide the event.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //