High CourtsDivision Bench

Chhotalal Hirachand vs Jethalal Varajbhai

Bombay High Court · Decided on 12 August 1914 · Citation: AIR 1914 Bom 148 : (1914) 16 BOMLR 676

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hayward, J · Beaman, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 62 of 1913
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 151 words

Beaman, J.—Without going into the entangled story of the litigation which has preceded the present suit, it is enough for all purposes of this appeal to say that the plaintiff after having been defeated under Order XXI, Rule 99, has brought a suit under Rule 103 of the same Order. In that suit he sought for and obtained from the trial Judge a temporary injunction restraining the defendant in the suit from taking possession of the property. Such a temporary injunction, we think, cannot be brought within the terms or the intention of Order XXXIX, Rule 1 or 2. It was, therefore, not within the competence of the learned Judge below to grant the temporary injunction complained of, and we think that this appeal must be allowed, and the order granting the plaintiff a temporary injunction must be set aside, and that injunction dissolved. Costs to be costs in the cause.