1. This is a petition for issue of an injunction restraining second respondent from taking his seat as Councillor in the Municipal Council of Madura pending disposal of C.R.P. No. 182 of 1924.
2. Petitioner and respondents were rival candidates in a Municipal election; petitioner was declared elected, and has since been, unseated after the inquiry in O.P. No. 51 of 1923 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, and C.R.P. No. 182 of 1924 is preferred against that decision.
3. I am doubtful whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction in such a matter. No such power lies with the Judge who holds an inquiry under the election rules, and it is not clear that the High Court acting in revision has any extended power. If a suit is transferred to the High Court, its powers are confined to powers which but for the transfer might have been exercised by the original Court: Annie Besant v. Narayaniah (1914) 38 Mad. 807. However the Calcutta High Court has held that it has general power of granting injunctions : Rash Behary Dey v. Bhowani Churn Bhose (1907) 34 Cal. 97 and Mungle Chand v. Gopal Ram (1907) 34 Cal. 101 and I will proceed on the assumption that the Court has jurisdiction.
4. Obviously an injunction of the sort prayed for, which can only be based upon a prima facie consideration of the case, must be granted with circumspection. It is impossible to lay down an exhaustive rule but generally speaking such injunctions should be confined to preserving the status quo ante, to preventing irremediable damage or loss to the property in the suit or to averting substantial injury. None of these conditions arise in the present case. This Court is not moved to reinstate the unseated Councillor, but to unseat the Councillor declared elected in his stead, and thus create a vacancy in the Municipal Council and an entirely new situation. It may be noted here that in Aslatt v. Corporation of Southampton (1881) 16 Ch. D. 143, the leading English case which. warrants the interference of the Courts in these matters, the Courts' order of injunction preserved the status quo ante. Compare also Wallaoe, J., in Sarvothama Rao v. Municipal Council, Saidapet A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 475, ' the ordinary Civil Court has the right to grant a proper temporary in junction relating to matters in status quo ante until the suit is tried'. Nor is there any question of irremediable damage, or indeed of any damage at all. The injury which is-' contemplated can at most only be such injury as an inhabitant of Madura town may suffer owing to a Councillor who will ultimately be proved not to have been duly elected temporarily taking his seat in the Council. It is difficult to conceive the circumstances which would give any substance to an injury of this sort; and there is no special allegation to this effect.
5. Accordingly I see DO reason to grant) an injunction, and dismiss this petition with costs.
6. Memorandum of objections will follow.