Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.
The plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r)of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 20.3.2018 passed by the court of first instance in original Suit no. 1144 of 2017 (Yogendr Yadav Vs.Krishi Utpaadan Mandi Samit).
The aforesaid suit is for permanent injunction so as to restrain the Krishi Utpaadan Mandi Samiti from releasing the interest amount for the plaintiff-appellant.
The interim relief claimed in the suit is also to the same effect. The interim relief as claimed if granted would amount to grant of the final relief of the suit and as such is not permissible at the interim stage.
Secondly, under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C., temporary injunctions can be granted for three reasons specified therein namely; (1) the property of the suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree; (2) that the opposite party threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of property with a view to defrauding his creditors, and (3) the opposite party threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute.
None of the above three grounds exists in the case at hand to enable the Court to the grant temporary injunction for the simple reason that injunction as claimed is in respect of realization of the interest money.
Lastly, according to the Order 39 Rule 2 of C.P.C. as amended in its application to the State of U.P., no injunction much less temporary injunction can be granted to stay the recovery of any dues recoverable as land revenue unless adequate security is furnished.
There is no dispute that the recovery has already been issued against the plaintiff-appellant to recover the interest amount as arrears of land revenue and, therefore, grant of any interim injunction in this regard would be in conflict with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2 as amended in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, irrespective of the reasons assigned by the court below, we are of the opinion that it is not a case where any interim injunction could have been granted to the plaintiff-appellant.
Accordingly, we find no error on the part of the court below in rejecting the application for interim injunction. The appeal, therefore, is without substance and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Akbar