Petitioner - original defendant no. 2 Shri Shasanadhikari Saheb, Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti, Jetpur, has moved this court under S.115 of the C.P.Code challenging the judgment and order dated 31.7.1996, passed by the learned 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Gondal,in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 1996, whereby the learned Judge, by allowing the appeal, granted ad interim injunction restraining the original defendants from withholding the salary of Respondents No. 1 and 2, who are working as teachers in the School run by the Nagar Pradhmik Shikshan Samiti, Jetpur. On behalf of the petitioner-original defendant, a technical defence was taken that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the Primary Education Act, and that only the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. The lower appellate court has dealt with this point, and has concluded that the Tribunal had already taken a decision that defendant no.2 was liable to pay salaries to the original plaintiffs. Even during the pendency of the suit, salary of the plaintiffs was withheld from January, 1996. The act of defendant no.2 in withholding the salary of the plaintiffs was against the provisions of law because they were serving as teachers since more than 20 years.
2.The contentions raised by defendant no.2 were fully dealt with by the lower appellate court in the impugned judgment. The lower appellate court has held that the plaintiffs have prima facie case and balance of convenience was also in their favour and that irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiffs if injunction as prayed for is not granted. In the said view of the matter, the learned lower appellate Judge has granted adinterim injunction pending the suit, which in my opinion is just and proper. The petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the order of the lower appellate court, under S. 115 of the C.P.Code as no illegality or material irregularity or any jurisdictional error has been pointed out. Hence, I see no merit in the revision application, and the same is accordingly rejected.
Dt.26.9.1996.( M. H. Kadri, J. )