Full Judgment
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. Short question which arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether interference by the High Court under Section 115 CPC is justified, where there is a concurrent finding of fact of the Courts below disposing the interim injunction application that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case ?
2. This question has emerged in the following circumstances-
(i) The plaintiff petitioner along with others co-plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 in the trial Court with regard, to a 'Baghichi Kho Walan' said to have been constructed at the 'Ghat gate Shamshan' with a view to provide facility to the person who attend funerals. For the purposes of restraining the defendants from making encroachment over the said 'Bagichi', an application seeking interim relief was filed by the plaintiff which was rejected by the trial Court but the appellate Court restrained the defendants from making construction, over the said Bagichi. The defendant Manak Chand filed revision against the said order and this Court in S. B. Civil Revision No. 449 of 1991 directed the parties to maintain status quo vide order dated Sept. 10, 1991. It was however, directed that if any party desirous of making construction over the said land for charitable purpose, application in this regard may be moved before the trial Court. It was also directed that civil suit be decided expeditiously.
(ii) Plaintiff and other co-plaintiff thereafter filed an application before the trial Court for issuance of temporary injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering in boring of water tank and installation of pipe line and electricity in the 'Bagichi Kho Walan'. The trial Court dismissed the said application. After an unsuccessful appeal, the plaintiff has filed the revision assailing the orders of the Courts below.
3. An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is required to do, or to refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of a preventive relief granted to a litigant quia timet, i.e. because he fears future possible injury. A temporary injunction is of two types one granted without finally disposing of the application for temporary injunction to operate immediately till the disposal of the said application and the other granted while finally disposing of the main application generally till the disposal of the suit. While former is generally classed as ad interim injunction, the latter is generally called temporary injunction. The Court has no jurisdiction to grant by way of interim relief what could never be granted in the main suit itself. Thus an interim injunction granted during the pendency of a suit should not be of greater scope than what could be granted in the suit. Plaintiff who seeks temporary injunction should not only show the prim facie case and balance of convenience but also ir(sic)parable injury and also that the case falls within he exceptional category of cases wherein the Courts should intervene immediately in granting relief which may in fact, cover the entire relief that should have been granted in the suit itself,
4. Admittedly the relief with regard to boring of water tank and installation of pipe line and electricity, has not been sought by the plaintiffs in the main suit. How such relief can be granted to them by issuing temporary injunction ?
5. The settled legal position is that the discretion exercised by the lower Court in the matter of granting or refusing temporary injunction should not be interfered with in revision unless the order exercising the discretion can be termed as perverse or having been passed on some extraneous considerations. Where there is a concurrent finding of fact by the Courts below that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case, the interference in revision with such finding is not justified.
6. In the instant case concurrent finding arrived at by the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse. The plaintiffs are not entitled to such interim relief which has not been sought in the main suit. The Courts below have not acted without jurisdiction or in exercise of jurisdiction have acted illegally or with material irregularity. If the orders of the Courts below are allowed to stand it would not occasion failure of justice.
7. Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Ex parte interim order, passed by this Court, stands vacated. Record of the Courts below be sent forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on Feb. 11, 1997. Costs easy.