1. Heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist.
2. The plaintiff-revisionist aggrieved by an order passed by the trial court dated 29th September 2005, whereby the trial court on an application 6 C2 filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction has passed the order to the effect that in the facts and circumstances of the case, unless the other party is heard, no ex parte temporary injunction can be granted and directed to issue notices to the defendants fixing 6th October, 2005, as the next date for disposal of the application for grant of temporary injunction.
3. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in Guru Dutt v. Anju Khatri and Anr. 2004 (2) AWC 1141 (LB) : 2004 (1) CLR 698, the trial court ought to have granted temporary injunction to the plaintiff. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the revisionist has relied upon paragraph 8 of the aforesaid decision, which is reproduced below:
8. The aforesaid provision goes to show that Court is empowered to grant temporary injunction to restrain the dispossession of the plaintiff or otherwise protecting the plaintiff from any anticipated inquiry to the rights of the plaintiff. Prima facie the ex parte case of the plaintiff as stated in the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. is such which gives an impression that the learned trial court must have jurisdiction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. and the learned trial court was in position to give reason also for grant of ex parte injunction as provided under Order XXXIX, Rule 3, C.P.C. but it appears that the learned trial court has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. Therefore, it is a fit case to interfere under Section 115, C.P.C. by this Court.
4. The facts of the present case are different than the facts of the case relied upon by learned Counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist, therefore the decision relied upon by learned Counsel for the revisionist will not help him. To me it appears that probably it has not been brought to the notice of the Court when the Court had decided the case of Gura Dutt (supra) that the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and Ors. 2003 (3) AWC 2198 (SC), has laid down the law otherwise. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society (supra) by which I am bound, no revision lies under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in the State of U. P. by U. P. Act No. 14 of 2003 against an order whereby the trial court has issued notices on the application for grant of temporary injunction inasmuch as the application for grant of temporary injunction is still pending before the trial court and has not been decided.
5. In view of what has been stated above, this revision is not maintainable as the order under revision is not an order which in view of the law laid down in the case of Shiv Shakti (supra), is covered by the phrase "case decided", as the application for grant of temporary injunction is still pending before the trial court and has not been finally disposed of.
6. In the result, this revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.