Devasahayam Nadar Anthonimuthu Nadar vs Arumukhan Nadar Oalayan Nadar

Gangadhara Menon, J.—These revision petitions arise out of the orders passed by the lower appellate Court in C.M.A. Nos. 77, 78 and 79 of 1952. The facts that gave rise to the above appeals are those. The counter-Petitioners in these C.R.Ps. filed suits in O.S. 173, 175 and 177 of 1952 in the Munsiff''s Court of, Padmanabhapuram for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from entering the plaint schedule properties. Along with the plaints, applications were filed for interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from entering possession of the plaint properties and the Court passed ex parte orders of interim injunction and also directed issue of notice. From the orders issuing interim injunction the Defendants filed the above C.M. Appeals to the District Court. That Court passed orders returning the appeals for presentation before this Court. The learned Judge does not say for what reason he has returned the appeals for presentation to this Court. The learned advocate states that it was because the learned Judge was of the view that the orders are not appealable.

I do not think that the view taken by the learned Judge is correct. Order 43, Rule 1(r) provides that an order under Rule 1, Rule 2, Rule 4 or Rule 10 of Order 39 is appealable. Orders of injunction passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 whether passed with or without notice are appealable under the above provisions Vide - ''Balabh Das v. Muhammad Ishaq'' AIR 1933 Lah 282 (A). This Court has taken the same view in the order in - ''C.R.P. No. 974 of 1951 (Trav-C)'' (B). The learned Judge is, therefore, wrong in thinking that the appeals are not competent before that Court and in returning the appeals for presentation to this Court. The orders of the learned Judge on the above C.M. Appeals are, therefore, set aside The lower appellate Court will readmit the appeals to its file and dispose of them in accordance with law.''