Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The appellant-a poor widow-is pitted against the former Maharaja of Kota the respondent before this Court. She seeks the refuge of this Court in order to protect her alleged property from the Maharaja's muscle men. She is challenging the Order dated 28.1.06, passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Kota whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's second temporary injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short).

9. On 13.1.2006, the appellant also filed a report at Police Station Nayapura, which was registered as FIR No. 39/2006 for offenses under Sections 143,323, 447 and 504 IPC. IN the said report, the appellant stated that respondent No. 1 along with Mr. Ijraj Singh and other anti-social elements came armed to the disputed land and tried to dispossesses her from the said land. She further claimed that a large crowd armed with deadly weapons such as "gandasas", "deshi kattas" and sticks tried to enter the disputed land and assaulted her daughter. They also abused her with regard to her caste. Only police interference saved their lives. Since both these incidents have occurred after the decision of the SLP on 10.3.2003, since her life and her property were both endangered, she filed a second application for temporary injunction before the trial Court. However, vide order dated 28.1.2006, the learned trial Court dismissed her application. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

11. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Rathore, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has argued that although the first temporary injunction application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 2.2.2000, the same was quashed and set aside by this Court vide its judgment dated 5.7.2002. Subsequently, the judgment dated 5.7.2002 was upheld by the Apex Court, vide its judgment dated 10.3.2003, when it dismissed the SLP filed by the appellant. Secondly, once the first application of temporary injunction stood rejected, the second application is not maintainable. In fact, it is hit by res judicata. Therefore, the learned Judge had validly rejected the second application. Thirdly, since the case has traveled all the way up to the Apex Court, the subsequent development of events would not entitle the appellant for a temporary injunction in her favor. Lastly, once a temporary injunction application has been dismissed, a second temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is not maintainable. At best the application has been moved under Section 151 of the Code. But a miscellaneous appeal is not maintainable from an order passed under Section 151 of the Code.

15. A bare perusal of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 clearly reveals that there is no statutory bar against the filing of a second temporary injunction application, provided new facts have emerged, which would warrant the issuance of the temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is free to file a second application for temporary injunction provided new facts or events make out a case in his favour. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that a second application for temporary injunction is non-maintainable is unsustainable.