MA No. 17/2021
Samitra Devi v. Shree Kumar Kotwal and others
Decided on: November 03, 2021
Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, while deciding an appeal, wherein the appellant sought setting aside of the order passed by the court of learned Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah whereby the application for grant of stay was dismissed, reiterated the provision envisaged under Order XXXIX CPC and observed that grant of temporary injunction is not to put an end to the litigation, but it is a beginning of the litigation. It was observed ” 11. Rule 1 of Order XXXIX, thus, says and envisages that in the event in a suit it is by affidavit or otherwise proved that any property, which is in dispute in a suit, is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated 5 MA No. 17/2021 by any party to the suit or wrongfully sold in an execution of a decree or that the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose-off his property with a view to defrauding his creditors or that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property, which is in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff or otherwise causing injury until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. It is necessary to be seen that if the property in dispute is tried to be wasted, damaged, alienated, sold, disposed-off or there are chances of dispossessing the plaintiff from any property, which is in dispute in the suit and/or which may cause injury to the plaintiff concerning any property, which is in dispute in the suit, the Court may grant the temporary injunction. So, grant of temporary injunction is not to put an end to the litigation, but it is a beginning of the litigation and grant of the temporary injunction is aiming at preserving the property, which is in dispute in the suit because if the temporary injunction is refused to be granted, it would pave way for either of the parties before the Court to alienate, sell, dispose of and/or change the nature of the property, which is in dispute in the suit and in such situation the purpose of litigation would be futile and/or endless for both the parties. Thus, as can be professed from the Rule 1 of Order XXXIX, grant of 6 MA No. 17/2021 temporary injunction is to prevent damage or wastage to any property which is in dispute in the suit.” With this observation, the Hon’ble Court found no scope to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Trial court and accordingly dismissed the appeal.