Skip to content


Chintamaneni Venkatappayya Vs. Chintamaneni Venkatappayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Mad352; 71Ind.Cas.450
AppellantChintamaneni Venkatappayya
RespondentChintamaneni Venkatappayya
Cases ReferredSokkalinga Chetty v. Krishnaswami Ayyar
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 95, order xxxix, rule 1 - injunction fending suit granted after hearing both parties--petition for compensation, maintainability of. - - it is not pretended that the application was based on anything that appeared in the trial of the suit (which actually took place in march 1921). it is doubtful whether an award of compensation can be made in a case where the order of injunction was passed after hearing both the parties and it was found that there, were sufficient grounds and the plaintiff has not ultimately failed in his suit, see roulet v.ramesam, j.1. in this case the petitioner filed a suit (original suit no. 852 of 1919) in the district munsif's court of nuzvid, at bezwada. on 27th november 1919 he applied under order xxxix, rule 1, civil procedure code, for an order of temporary injunction. on the same day an ad interim injunction was issued and notice to the defendant was also ordered. the defendant appeared on 5th december 1919 and opposed the plaintiff's application. the district munsif passed an order directing that, if the defendant furnished security or deposited an amount representing the value of the crop, 'the temporary injunction will be dissolved and till then, the temporary injunction shall stand. on 7th december 1919 the defendant furnished security and the temporary injunction was dissolved. as i read the.....
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. In this case the petitioner filed a suit (Original Suit No. 852 of 1919) in the District Munsif's Court of Nuzvid, at Bezwada. On 27th November 1919 he applied under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for an order of temporary injunction. On the same day an ad interim injunction was issued and notice to the defendant was also ordered. The defendant appeared on 5th December 1919 and opposed the plaintiff's application. The District Munsif passed an order directing that, if the defendant furnished security or deposited an amount representing the value of the crop, 'the temporary injunction will be dissolved and till then, the temporary injunction shall stand. On 7th December 1919 the defendant furnished security and the temporary injunction was dissolved. As I read the District Munsif's order of 5th December 1919, the District Munsif was of opinion that there were sufficient grounds for the plaintiff's application. On 19th December 1919, i.e., within 12 days after the order, the defendant filed an application for compensation from the plaintiff on the ground that his application for temporary injunction was made on insufficient grounds. (The suit was actually tried in March 1921). The District Munsif dismissed the application holding that there were sufficient grounds for the plaintiff's application. But on appeal the Subordinate Judge, on reading the affidavit filed in support of the original application, held that it was based on insufficient grounds and awarded compensation. The present revision petition is against the order of the Subordinate Judge.

2. In my opinion, the petition of the respondent does not lie. It is not pretended that the application was based on anything that appeared in the trial of the suit (which actually took place in March 1921). It is doubtful whether an award of compensation can be made in a case where the order of injunction was passed after hearing both the parties and it was found that there, were sufficient grounds and the plaintiff has not ultimately failed in his suit, see Roulet v. Fetterle 18 B. 717 : 9 Ind. Cas. (N.S.) 987. But assuming that even where, after an order was made on hearing both parties and the plaintiff has ultimately succeeded, a petition lies under Section 95 for compensation--such cases must be very rare indeed--the stage for such an application would be only when the suites heard. Up to then, such a petition would be premature [see Sokkalinga Chetty v. Krishnaswami Ayyar 55 Ind. Cas. 786 : 11 L.W. 479 : (1920) M.W.N. 192 : 38 M.L.J. 324 : 27 M.L.T. 259. I am not saying that, when the order was refused, compensation, cannot be asked immediately without waiting for the suit.

3. In my opinion, to allow a petition of this kind immediately after the main petition, was disposed of and without fresh materials as for a review or such as may appear at the trial of the suit will be generally, to permit a Court to come to a conclusion inconsistent with and opposed to its prior order. I do not think sucli an anomaly is intended by Section 95.

4. The proceedings in the Courts below are without jurisdiction. I, therefore, reverse the order of the Subordinate Judge. The respondent will pay petitioner's costs throughout.


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